United States of America v. Montgomery Joseph Isner, a/k/a Montgomery Joe Carter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MONTGOMERY JOSEPH ISNER, a/k/a Montgomery Joe Carter,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00012-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jarod James Douglas,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Montgomery Joseph Isner pleaded guilty to one count of
making a false statement on a loan application and was sentenced
to 30 months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed an Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, raising no meritorious
issues, but questioning whether the sentence is substantively
reasonable. The Government declined to file a brief. Isner did
not file a pro se brief despite notice of his right to do so.
Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first review for significant procedural
errors, including whether the district court failed to calculate
or improperly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range,
treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or failed to adequately explain
its chosen sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we then examine substantive reasonableness,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. If the
sentence is within the Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).
Counsel questions whether Isner’s sentence is greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
find that the sentence is substantively reasonable. The
district court meaningfully considered defense counsel’s
suggestions for a sentence of time served, and explained its
chosen sentence. Furthermore, Isner presents no evidence to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his
within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Isner’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Isner, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Isner 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 Isner.
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 of 3 --