United States of America v. Joshua Alexander Hovis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA ALEXANDER HOVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00056-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Julie Carol
Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorneys, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joshua Alexander Hovis pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). The
district court sentenced Hovis to 85 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of Hovis’ sentence,
particularly the adequacy of the district court’s consideration of one of Hovis’ mitigating
arguments. Although informed of his right to do so, Hovis has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and the Government has elected not to file a brief. We affirm.
We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally
reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory [G]uidelines 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. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of
“significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
statutory purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any sentence that is within or

-- 2 of 3 --

3
below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.”
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Here, the district court correctly calculated Hovis’ advisory Guidelines range, heard
argument from counsel, provided Hovis an opportunity to allocute, considered the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence.
Despite Anders counsel’s contention to the contrary, the record reflects adequate
consideration of defense counsel’s mitigating arguments. Because Hovis has not
demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against
the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. Id. We therefore conclude that Hovis’ sentence
is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Hovis, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hovis 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 Hovis. 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 --