UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4657
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMAR LAMONT CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00030)
Submitted: July 6, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David Paul
Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamar Lamont Carter appeals his convictions and 225-month
sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2000); one count of possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
(2000); and one count of possessing a firearm during and in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2000).
On appeal, counsel for Carter has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but presenting for our
review the reasonableness of Carter’s sentence. Although notified
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Carter has not
done so.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-
47 (4th Cir. 2005). A court must initially calculate the
appropriate Guidelines range, making any appropriate factual
findings. United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir.
2006). The court then considers the resulting advisory Guidelines
range in conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and determines an appropriate sentence.
- 2 -
Davenport, 445 F.3d at 370. We will affirm a post-Booker sentence
if it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546-47. A sentence within the proper advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
(2006). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
and conclude that Carter’s sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed
the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. We therefore affirm Carter’s convictions 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 -