United States of America v. Philip Ketter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILIP KETTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cr-00183-RJC-DCK-5)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 18, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Philip Ketter pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to commit bank
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349. The district court sentenced Ketter to 46
months in prison, to be followed by two years’ supervised release. Ketter’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, and conceding that Ketter’s plea was knowing and voluntary
and that the imposed sentence is reasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief, Ketter argues
that his sentence was premised on an incorrect Sentencing Guidelines range. 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, afforded the parties an opportunity to argue for
an appropriate sentence, and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence and its reasons for

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Ketter’s downward variant sentence. Ketter has failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness afforded his 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 Ketter, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ketter 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 Ketter. 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 --