UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL EDWARD BENNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00169-WLO)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F.
Joseph, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carl Edward Bennett pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court
sentenced Bennett to thirty-three months of imprisonment.
Bennett’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the
district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it was
greater than necessary to serve the ends of justice. Bennett was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. We affirm.
In sentencing Bennett, the district court considered the
properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range and the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2006). The sentence imposed is within the guideline range and well
below the ten-year statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(2) (2000). Under these circumstances, we find that
Bennett’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Johnson,
445 F.3d 339, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating that “a sentence imposed within
the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 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 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 -