UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Lamont ROCHELLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant, 683 F. App'x 222

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony Lamont Rochelle, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2012), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) (2012). He appeals his resulting 130-month sentence. On appeal, Rochelle’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by denying a downward variance.

Rochelle was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review Rochelle’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

We first ensure that the court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as improper calculation óf the Sentencing Guidelines, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. §• 3553(á) (2012) factors, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010) .(internal quotation marks omitted). If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable; we also review its substantive reasonableness . under “the totality of the circumstances.’* Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. We presume that a within-Guidelineé sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Rochelle bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(

a) factors.” Id . Our review of the record indicates that Rochelle’s sentence is reasonable. The court properly . calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the parties’' sentencing arguments, and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, expressly grounded ■ in various § 3553(

a) factors. The court specifically considered Rochelle’s' request for a downward variance, but reasonably declined to -sentence him below the-Guidelines range, concluding that such a reduction was unwarranted based on the seriousness of the offense, the benefit Ito-chelle-received from the plea bargaining process, his -significant criminal record at a very young age, and a substantial need to protect the public. Rochelle fails to rebut the. presumption of substantive rea-' sonableness accorded his within-Guidelines 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 district court’s judgment. This court requires that ' counsel inform Rochelle, in writing, of the. right to -petition the Supreme Court of the ■ United States for further review. If Rochelle requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, thén counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Rochelle.

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