UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AVIN JABBAR DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00836-DCN)
Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Avin Jabbar Davis entered a guilty plea to possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) (2000). He received a sentence of 115
months’ imprisonment. Davis’ counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising
as potential issues whether the district court fully complied with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether Davis’ sentence was reasonable.
Although advised of his right to do so, Davis has not filed a pro
se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel first raises the issue of whether the district
court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the
Rule 11 proceeding. After a thorough review of the record, we find
the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11.
Davis next questions whether his sentence was reasonable.
This Court will affirm a sentence if it “is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable.” United States v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
“[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
- 2 -
In the presentence report, because Davis had at least two
prior convictions for controlled substances, his offense level was
24. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) §2K2.1(a)(2)
(2006). He received a two-level enhancement because the firearm
involved in the offense was stolen, USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), and a
two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, USSG § 3C1.1.
Thus, his total offense level was 28. With a criminal history
category VI, Davis’ advisory guideline range was 140 to 175 months’
imprisonment. However, because the statute under which he was
convicted called for a maximum sentence of 10 years, his guideline
range was 120 months’ imprisonment. After the district court
sustained Davis’ objection to the obstruction of justice
enhancement and applied a three-level adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility under USSG §3E1.1, the court established Davis’
guideline range at 92 to 115 months. After considering and
examining the sentencing guidelines and the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000) factors, the district court sentenced Davis to 115
months’ imprisonment. We find the district court’s imposition of
a 115-month sentence, which was within the advisory guidelines
range and below the statutory maximum, was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right
- 3 -
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If he 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
Davis. 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
- 4 -