UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RISCHARD ADOLPHUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-04-42-F)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, Jacksonville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rischard Adolphus pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Adolphus was
sentenced following the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court applied the
holding of Booker and sentenced Adolphus to 115 months
imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but addressing whether Adolphus was properly sentenced
in accordance with Booker and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). Adolphus has filed a supplemental pro se
brief in which he asserts that his sentence exceeds the statutory
maximum. Finding no error, we affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. See Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. However, in
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still
required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range
as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006). Id. If the sentence imposed is within the
properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively
- 2 -
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3654 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474).
Adolphus’ sentence was both within the guideline range of
92-115 months, and, contrary to Adolphus’ contention, within the
statutory maximum of ten years imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §
924(a)(2) (2000). Because the district court appropriately treated
the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered
the guideline range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the
sentence reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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 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 -