United States of America v. Jeffrey D. Cross

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4453
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY D. CROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:23-cr-00021-TSK-MJA-2)
Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Hilary L. Godwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen
Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey D. Cross appeals his conviction and the 12-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of
a firearm, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2). On
appeal, Cross’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of Cross’s sentence. Though notified of his right to do so, Cross has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a response brief.
We affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence
is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines 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. at 49-51. If a sentence is free of “significant procedural
error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. at 51.
We conclude that the district court imposed a procedurally reasonable sentence by
correctly calculating the Guidelines range, allowing the parties to advocate for an
appropriate sentence, giving Cross an opportunity to address the court, sufficiently
addressing Cross’s arguments for a shorter sentence, and considering the § 3553(a) factors.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Furthermore, nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of substantive reasonableness
accorded Cross’s within-Guidelines-range sentence. See United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
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 Cross, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cross 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 Cross.
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 --