United States of America v. Shauntel Naquan Brodie

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUNTEL NAQUAN BRODIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cr-00308-WO-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 26, 2026
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Eric D. Placke, Interim Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shauntel Naquan Brodie appeals the 18-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty
to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
924(a)(8). On appeal, Brodie’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 whether Brodie’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Though notified of his
right to do so, Brodie has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has
declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
“This Court reviews 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) (citation
modified). “First, we 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, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v.
Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). “If the sentence is
procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Provance,
944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation modified). “Any sentence that is within or
below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Such a
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

-- 2 of 4 --

3
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation modified).
We conclude that Brodie’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
The district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months’
imprisonment. The court noted Brodie’s parental support and engaged—and agreed—with
his arguments that his offense conduct was not on the egregious end of the wide range of
conduct that the felon-in-possession statute punishes. But the court emphasized Brodie’s
criminal history and his problems complying with the terms of his pretrial release. The
court thoroughly explained its determination that the 18-month sentence imposed was
necessary in light of, inter alia, the seriousness of the offense and the needs to promote
respect for the law, to afford adequate specific deterrence, and to protect the public. Brodie
fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines-range
sentence.
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 Brodie, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brodie 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 Brodie.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --