United States v. Brian Campbell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-4279
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN TERREL CAMPBELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00114-FL-1)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Brian Terrel Campbell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924. The district court sentenced Campbell to 120

months’ imprisonment. Campbell appeals. Campbell’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues

for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Although advised of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Campbell has not filed a brief. We affirm.

We review Campbell’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-

of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We first ensure that

the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the

Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or

inadequately explaining the sentence. United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170

(4th Cir. 2014). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, we also review its

substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the

goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume that a within-Guidelines sentence

is substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

Campbell bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

Our review of the record convinces us that Campbell’s sentence is both procedurally

and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory

Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4279 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

its reasons for the sentence imposed. Campbell fails to rebut the presumption of

substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Campbell, in writing, of the right to petition the

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