UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN BLEU REAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00277-WO-1)

Submitted: March 7, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS MCCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Nichole Royer DuPre, Assistant United States Attorney, K.P. Kennedy Gates, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Christian Bleu Reavis pleaded guilty to coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and possession of material containing an image of child pornography which had been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Reavis has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Here, a review of the record reveals that the district court did not commit any procedural sentencing errors, and Reavis fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Reavis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Reavis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Reavis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED