UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PETER JEROME GAITHER,
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-00363-WLO)
Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: November 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Peter Jerome
Gaither pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (2000),
and to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). Gaither was
sentenced to 115 months’ imprisonment for each offense, to run
concurrently. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but contending that Gaither’s
sentence was unreasonable. Gaither was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so, and the
Government elected not to file a responsive brief.
Gaither contends that his sentence is unreasonable
because he had never before been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment and the imposition of 115 months as a first prison
term is unreasonable. However, the district court appropriately
calculated the advisory Guidelines range and considered it in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d
424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
Gaither’s sentence, which is well within the applicable Guidelines
range and the statutory maximum, is therefore reasonable. See
- 2 -
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-65 (2007).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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 Gaither requests that
such 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 Gaither.
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 -