UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4864
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY LAVENIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-05-370)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 1, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lavenia appeals from his 41-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to making a false statement to
acquire a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6),
924(a)(2) (2000). Lavenia’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there
were no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the validity
of Lavenia’s plea and sentence. Lavenia was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we
affirm.
We find that Lavenia’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Lavenia was properly advised of his rights, the
offense charged, and the maximum sentence for the offense. The
court also determined that there was an independent factual basis
for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any
promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970);
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 41-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West Supp. 2005); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that the
- 2 -
sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence imposed within the
properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm Lavenia’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Lavenia’s conviction and sentence. 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 -