USCA4 Appeal: 23-4365 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4365

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM EDWARD MADDOX, JR., a/k/a Unc,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00009-JPB-JPM-1)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Carly Cordaro Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4365 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

William Edward Maddox, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Maddox to 188 months’ imprisonment.

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

(1967),

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Maddox’s

sentence is reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so and receiving extensions

of time to file, Maddox has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government has

elected not 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,

, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitted). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally

reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate

sentence, considered the

(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the

selected sentence.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of

“significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]

into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States,

(2007). A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the

statutory purposes of sentencing.

(a). “Any sentence that is within or

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4365 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014).

Here, the district court correctly calculated Maddox’s advisory Guidelines range,

heard argument from counsel, provided Maddox an opportunity to allocute, considered the

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.

Because Maddox has not demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable

when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption

of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id. We therefore conclude

that Maddox’s sentence is both procedurally and 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 Maddox, in writing, of the right to petition the

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