United States of America v. Frank Roosevely Giggetts, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANK ROOSEVELY GIGGETTS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00241-FL-1)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF W. H. PARAMORE, III,
Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Frank Roosevely Giggetts, Jr., pled guilty without a plea agreement to distribution
of cocaine base and marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Giggetts to 151
months in prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release. Giggetts’ 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 asserting that the district court reversibly erred when it
denied Giggetts’ motion for a downward variant sentence. Although advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Giggetts has not done so. The Government has declined
to file a response brief. We affirm.
We review a criminal “sentence[ ]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,
. . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant
procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; see
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). “Any sentence that is within
or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties the opportunity to argue for an

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appropriate sentence, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence and its reasons for
denying Giggetts’ motion for a downward variance. Giggetts has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines-range 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 the amended criminal
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Giggetts, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Giggetts 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 Giggetts. 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 --