USCA4 Appeal: 24-4061 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERIK WAYNE BOWERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00019-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4061 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Derik Wayne Bowers pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to stalking, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(2)(B), 2261(b)(5). He was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Bowers’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

whether Bowers’ sentence, which falls within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is

reasonable. Specifically, counsel contends that the district court failed to adequately

consider Bowers’ mother’s ill health in determining Bowers’ sentence. Although he was

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

Government has declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

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

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, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, 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, [we] 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,

). Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4061 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

presumptively reasonable, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.

White,

(4th Cir. 2016).

We conclude that Bowers’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range—to which Bowers did not

object—and thoroughly explained why it imposed Bowers’ 41-month custodial sentence

and term of supervised release. We further conclude that the district court expressly and

adequately considered Bowers’ mother’s ill health and need for care in determining

Bowers’ sentence. In addition, Bowers fails to overcome the presumption of

reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines sentence.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have found no

meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This

court requires that counsel inform Bowers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Bowers 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 Bowers. 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

3