UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4294
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEROY EDWARD BROWN, JR.,
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-00188-NCT)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul
Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Edward Brown, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess and utter counterfeited and forged American Express Gift
Cheques, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). He was sentenced
to a term of twenty-one months imprisonment and three years of
supervised release, and ordered to make restitution in the amount
of $2800. Brown’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the twenty-one-
month within-guideline sentence was unreasonable, but stating that,
in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Brown was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. We affirm the conviction and sentence.
On appeal, counsel suggests that the district court
plainly erred by not stating that it had considered the sentencing
factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007)
before pronouncing sentence. We review a sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States
v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We must first ensure
that the district court committed no procedural error and then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 128
S. Ct. at 597.
The sentencing record discloses no procedural error.
Although the court did not mention § 3553(a), it considered and
- 2 -
discussed several § 3553(a) factors as it explained its decision to
sentence Brown at the high end of the guideline range. Brown has
not rebutted on appeal the presumption of reasonableness afforded
his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A sentence within the proper
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”); see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness of within-guidelines sentence).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find 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 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 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 -