UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4961
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH DOUGLAS WEBB, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:05-cr-00972)
Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 28, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Douglas Webb, Jr., pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to thirty-seven months
in prison. On appeal, Webb’s attorney has filed an Anders* brief,
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Webb’s sentence was reasonable. Although Webb
was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he
has not done so.
Before determining a sentence, the district court is
required to calculate and consider the appropriate guideline range,
as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). We
will affirm a sentence if it is both reasonable and within the
statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. Here, the district
court calculated a guideline range of 37-46 months, to which Webb
had no objection. The court then heard from counsel, Webb, and
Webb’s fiancee regarding Webb’s success in school, his work
history, his drug problems, and his family responsibilities. After
stating that it had considered the guideline range and the relevant
statutory sentencing factors, the district court imposed a sentence
well below the statutory maximum and at the bottom of the guideline
range. We find that the sentence was reasonable.
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Webb’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 -