UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LESLIE RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cr-00993-HMH)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leslie Rice appeals his conviction and the 216-month
sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of possession
of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by
more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g) (2000). On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief, in
which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questions whether the district court committed plain error in
sentencing Rice. Rice was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not filed a brief. We affirm.
We review a district court’s sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
“Consistent with the remedial scheme set forth in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court shall first calculate
(after making the appropriate findings of fact) the range
prescribed by the guidelines.” Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. Counsel
does not assert that the district court erred in determining the
applicable Guidelines2 range, and our review of the record reveals
no error. Next, the district court must consider the Guidelines
range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and
impose a sentence. “A sentence within the proper advisory
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2006).
- 2 -
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341-42 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United
States, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption).
If a court imposes a sentence outside the Guidelines range, the
court must state its reasons for doing so. Hughes, 401 F.3d at
546. The sentence must be “within the statutorily prescribed range
and . . . reasonable.” Id. at 546-47 (citations omitted). In this
case, Rice was sentenced within the Guidelines range, and we
conclude that his sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Rice’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Rice, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Rice 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 Rice.
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 -