UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES LAMONT HAIRSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00307-NCT)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lamont Hairston appeals from his conviction and
120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
distribution of crack cocaine. Hairston’s attorney filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Hairston was advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has declined to do so.
Our review of the record discloses no reversible error;
accordingly, we affirm Hairston’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Hairston’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Hairston was properly advised of his rights, the
elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and the
maximum sentence for the offense. The court also determined that
there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the
plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We
therefore find that the plea was valid.
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 120-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); see United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
- 2 -
the sentence imposed—which was within the properly calculated
guideline range—was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (“[A] sentence imposed within the properly
calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable
presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm Hairston’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Hairston’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 -