USCA4 Appeal: 24-4035 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVON ROARY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cr-00178-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: January 8, 2025

Before AGEE and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Matthew C. Joseph, LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW C. JOSEPH PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4035 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Travon Roary pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Hobbs Act robbery, in

violation of

, and Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting such

robbery, in violation of

, 2. The district court sentenced Roary to

concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. On

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

(1967),

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although advised of his right to

do so, Roary has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. The Government has declined to

file a response brief.

Because Roary did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we

review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 2016). Our review of the plea colloquy confirms that the magistrate judge

substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P 11 and the district court properly concluded

that Roary’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.

Discerning no plain error, we conclude that Roary’s guilty plea is valid.

As for Roary’s sentence, we review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,

(2007). Under this

standard, a sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

. In determining procedural reasonableness, this Court considers whether the district

court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall,

. If a sentence is free

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4035 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness,

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”

. “Any sentence that is

within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the

(a) factors.”

We conclude that the 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 Roary, in writing, of the right to petition the

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