UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4354
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HENRY FREDERICK KRIZANOVIC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-124)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Henry Frederick Krizanovic pled guilty to bank robbery
and was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal,
counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but
raising the following issues: whether (1) the district court erred
by failing to grant a downward departure for diminished capacity
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (2004), p.s., and,
(2) the sentence was reasonable under United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, a district court’s failure to grant a downward
departure is not reviewable unless a district court was under the
mistaken impression that it lacked the authority to depart. United
States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338, 352 (4th Cir. 2000). Here there
is no indication in the record that the district court
misunderstood its authority. Second, we find that Krizanovic’s
forty-six month sentence, imposed at the bottom of his properly
calculated Guideline range, and after the court considered the
factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), was
reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th
Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Shannon, 414 F.3d 921, 924
(8th Cir. 2005) (stating that a “sentence imposed . . . consistent
with the now-advisory guidelines . . . is generally indicative of
reasonableness.”).
- 2 -
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client 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 the
client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -