United States v. Scott Tingler, 20-4546

Scott D. Tingler pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and to filing a fraudulent tax return.
District court sentenced Tingler to 121 months’ imprisonment (low end of the Guidelines range).
Tingler appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious grounds but questioned sentence reasonableness.
Appellate review applies deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, assessing procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall.
The Fourth Circuit found no procedural error (Guidelines calculation, opportunity to be heard, consideration of § 3553(a) factors, explanation).
The court held the within-Guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable and Tingler failed to rebut that presumption; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of sentencing	Tingler contends sentence unreasonable (counsel questioned reasonableness)	District court properly calculated Guidelines, heard parties, considered § 3553(a), explained sentence	No procedural error; calculation and procedure proper
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Sentence is excessive	Within a properly calculated Guidelines range and thus presumptively reasonable	Presumption not rebutted; 121-month sentence reasonable
Adequacy of appellate review under Anders	Counsel identified no meritorious issues but questioned sentence	Anders brief prudently submitted; record reviewed	Court conducted full review, found no meritorious issues; affirmed; counsel must notify client about certiorari rights

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)