UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ROBERT MONAHAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-452)
Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Kearns Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Robert Monahan pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). He was sentenced to thirty months in prison. Monahan now
appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Monahan was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
The sole issue raised by counsel is whether the sentence
is reasonable. We note that counsel identifies no error in the
proceeding and concludes that the sentence, at the low end of
Monahan’s guideine range of 30-37 months, is reasonable.
After the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining a
sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to
calculate and consider the defendant’s guideline range and to
consider that range along with the sentencing factors set forth at
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Id. We will
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within
the statutory maximum. Id. at 546-47.
- 2 -
Here, the district court, as required, considered both
the guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors when imposing
sentence. The thirty-month sentence is with the statutory maximum
of ten years. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005).
Accordingly, we conclude that Monahan’s sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore 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 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 -