States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). The court first reviews for
significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from
such error, it then considers substantive reasonableness. Id.
at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
failing to adequately explain the selected sentence. Id. To
adequately explain the sentence, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment” by applying the relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the case’s specific circumstances. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must be
adequate to allow meaningful appellate review. Id. at 330.
Substantive reasonableness is determined by considering the
totality of the circumstances, and if the sentence is within the
properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We conclude that Wimberly has
not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Wimberly’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Wimberly, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for