United States of America v. Corey Wendell Cox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY WENDELL COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00274-WO-1)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: June 20, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Corey Wendell Cox appeals the 112-month sentence
imposed upon him after the disposition of his initial direct
appeal, in which we affirmed his conviction but vacated his
sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of United
States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Cox’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she states that she
could identify no meritorious issues for appeal but questions
whether Cox’s sentence is reasonable. Cox was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We affirm.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first 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) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Id. If no procedural error was committed, we
review the sentence for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]
into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. A
sentence that falls within or below a properly calculated

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
As Cox’s counsel correctly observes, the district
court did not err in including two points in Cox’s criminal
history for his 1996 conviction because there was sufficient
evidence before the court that the commencement of the instant
offense occurred within ten years of that conviction. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 4A1.2(e)(2) (2010). Our review
of the record convinces us that Cox’s sentence is otherwise
reasonable. We discern no error with respect to the district
court’s computation of the applicable Guidelines range, the
opportunities the court provided Cox and his counsel to speak in
mitigation, or the court’s explanation of the sentence imposed
by reference to the § 3553(a) factors. Nor does the record
demonstrate any reason to disturb the presumptive substantive
reasonability of Cox’s sentence. Susi, 674 F.3d at 289.
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 judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Cox, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cox 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

-- 3 of 4 --

4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Cox. 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 --