UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4459
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARELL EUGENE JENKINS,
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-00314-NCT)
Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Bryson, WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney; Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darell Eugene Jenkins pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2) (2000). Jenkins was sentenced
to 54 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Jenkins’ sentence is
reasonable. Jenkins was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected
not to file a responding brief.
Jenkins contends his sentence is unreasonable. However,
the district court appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines
as advisory, properly calculated and considered the advisory
guideline range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2000) factors. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47
(4th Cir. 2005). Jenkins’ 54-month sentence, which is no greater
than the applicable guideline range and below the statutory
maximum, is therefore presumptively reasonable. See 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) (approving presumption of reasonableness accorded
sentences within properly calculated guideline range).
- 2 -
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the 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 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -