USCA4 Appeal: 24-4360 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4360

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEREMY FONTAZ MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cr-00205-CCE-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ames C. Chamberlin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Laura Jeanne Dildine, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4360 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Fontaz Moore pleaded guilty to distribution of fentanyl, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of

(g)(1). The district court sentenced Moore below the advisory Sentencing

Guidelines range to 120 months of imprisonment. Moore now appeals. On appeal,

Moore’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967),

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Moore’s

sentence is substantially reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Moore has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 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). 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 the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing]

into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the

Guidelines range.” 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 below a properly calculated

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4360 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014).

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

heard argument from counsel and responded to the parties arguments, provided Moore an

opportunity to allocute, considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its

reasons for imposing the chosen sentence. Because Moore 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 below-Guidelines

sentence. Louthian,

. We therefore conclude that Moore’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 Moore, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

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