United States of America v. Christopher L. Abernathy, a/k/a Christopher L. Abernathy, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER L. ABERNATHY, a/k/a Christopher L. Abernathy, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:18-cr-00928-DCC-1)
Submitted: November 1, 2019 Decided: November 7, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher L. Abernathy pled guilty to one count of making counterfeit money, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2012). Abernathy’s 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 whether Abernathy’s 24-month sentence is reasonable. We
affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails
consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 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)
(2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are
no procedural errors, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively
substantively reasonable if it “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,”
and this “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit
procedural error, and Abernathy fails to rebut the presumption that his sentence is
substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated his Guidelines range and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
reasonably determined that a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range was
appropriate in this case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Abernathy’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Abernathy, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Abernathy 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 Abernathy.
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 --