UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY DONNELL OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-276)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Donnell Owens appeals from his sentence imposed
upon resentencing following his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). The district court had originally
sentenced Owens under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines
to 108 months incarceration. We remanded the case for resentencing
in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On
remand, the district court imposed a 100-month sentence. Owens’
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 reasonableness of the sentence. Owens
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 the district court properly applied the
sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 100-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 Owens’
sentence, which is “with the properly calculated [g]uidelines
range,” is reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
457 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
- 2 -
omitted), petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. April
17, 2006) (No. 05-10474).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Owens’ 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 -