United States v. Stanley Eaves, Sr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 26, 2022
• Docket: 22-4032
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4032

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY CHOATE EAVES, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00341-FDW-DCK-1)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL, PLLC, Carrboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Choate Eaves, Sr., pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343. The district court sentenced Eaves to 37 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is

substantively reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Eaves has not filed a pro

se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under the Gall standard, a

sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In

determining procedural reasonableness, * we consider whether the district court properly

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

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free

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

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. We “apply a

presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within or below a properly calculated

[G]uidelines range.” United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

quotation marks omitted). This “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the

* Although counsel only questions the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, we are obliged to consider its procedural reasonableness first, notwithstanding the fact that this is an Anders appeal. See United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 215, 218 (4th Cir. 2019).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4032 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

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

357-58 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly calculated

the advisory Guidelines range, allowed Eaves the opportunity for allocution, and

thoroughly explained the selected sentence, emphasizing its concern that Eaves attempted

to renew his fraudulent scheme after pleading guilty and while he was on bond awaiting

sentencing. We further conclude that Eaves cannot overcome the presumption of

reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.

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

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

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

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

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