United States of America v. Ronnie Nelson Clark

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONNIE NELSON CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00381-WO-1)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 26, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark E. Edwards, EDWARDS & TRENKLE, PLLC, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. K. P. Kennedy Gates, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Nelson Clark pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to receipt of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). The district court
sentenced Clark to 327 months’ imprisonment. Clark appeals. Clark’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. Clark
has filed a pro se supplemental brief asking the court to “decrease or overturn” his sentence.
We affirm.
We review Clark’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).
Clark 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 Clark’s sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the applicable advisory

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Guidelines range, considered the parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained
its reasons for the sentence imposed. Clark 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 Clark, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Clark 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 Clark. 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 --