UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4736
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE ALBERT WITHERSPOON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:06-cr-00976-DCN)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. John Charles Duane, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Albert Witherspoon appeals from his conviction and
180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being in
possession of a firearm after previously having been convicted of
a felony offense. Witherspoon’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 addressing the validity of
the plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Witherspoon 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 Witherspoon’s conviction
and sentence.
We find that Witherspoon’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Witherspoon was properly advised of his rights, the
elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and
maximum sentences 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 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 180-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
- 2 -
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); see United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
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 Witherspoon’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Witherspoon’s conviction and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform her 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
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -