USCA4 Appeal: 23-4717 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO DEVON HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00163-TDS-1)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 15, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Lisa S. Costner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4717 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Devon Henderson pled guilty, without the benefit of a written plea

agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1). The district court sentenced Henderson to 78 months’ imprisonment and 3

years of supervised release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking

this court to review the reasonableness of the selected sentence, including the propriety of

the court’s decision to deny an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Although informed

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Henderson has not done so. The Government

declined to file a brief. We affirm.

We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

[Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United

States v. Torres-Reyes,

(4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “First, we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural

error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . .

failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United States v.

Fowler,

(4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States,

(2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the

circumstances.” United States v. Provance,

(4th Cir. 2019) (quoting

Gall,

). We afford a presumption of reasonableness to any sentence “within

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4717 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range.” United States v. Gillespie,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant can rebut this

presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against

the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014).

Our review of the record confirms the procedural reasonableness of Henderson’s

sentence. The district court took testimony to resolve Henderson’s sentencing objections,

which primarily challenged the presentence report’s recitation of the facts relevant to the

offense conduct. Upon review, we discern no clear error in the district court’s rejection of

all but one of these objections or in the calculation of Henderson’s advisory Guidelines

range—including the court’s denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because

of Henderson’s false denial of the conduct related to the offense of conviction. See United

States v. Jeffery,

(4th Cir. 2011) (providing standard of review); see also

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A) (2023) (explaining that “[a]

defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court

determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of

responsibility”). The district court also (a) afforded the parties an opportunity to argue for

an appropriate sentence and heard Henderson’s allocution; (b) weighed the § 3553(a)

factors it deemed most relevant; and (c) provided a reasoned explanation for the chosen

sentence. And because nothing in the record undermines the presumption of substantive

reasonableness afforded the selected within-Guidelines sentence, we also conclude that

Henderson’s sentence is substantively reasonable.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4717 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/15/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

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 Henderson, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Henderson 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 Henderson. 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

4