UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Dennis Larry MCKEVER, Defendant - Appellant.
Dennis Larry McKever pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). McKever’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether McKever’s within-Guidelines, 72-month sentence is reasonable. We affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. If there are no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. A sentence is presumptively reasonable if it is within or below the Guidelines range, and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [ (2012) ] factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). After properly calculating McKever’s Guidelines range, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and opined that, although McKever’s lengthy criminal history was non-violent, a “substantial sentence” was needed to protect the public. Accordingly, the court denied McKever’s request for a downward variance and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 72 months. McKever has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McKever’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McKever, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McKever 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 McKever.
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 by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.