UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD TODD BRIGGS,
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-01-291)
Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a hearing at which Reginald Todd Briggs
admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the
district court revoked Briggs’ release and imposed an eight-month
sentence, to be followed by a supervised release term of forty-
seven months. Briggs appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 367 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserting that
the sentence is erroneous. Briggs was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief. We
affirm.
In accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), a sentencing court should determine the sentencing range
under the sentencing guidelines, consider the factors set forth at
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and impose a
reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum. See United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). “A
sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
. . . is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Under these principles, we conclude that
Briggs’ sentence, which falls below the statutory maximum and
within the properly calculated guideline range, is reasonable.
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to 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 this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -