UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOREN TIMOTHY INGLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (7:07-cr-00707-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carlina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Loren Timothy Ingle pled guilty to felon in possession of
a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He was
sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of
supervised release. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue
of whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Although informed
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Ingle has not
done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the sentence imposed by the district
court 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). When
sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly
calculate the guideline range; (2) treat the guidelines as
advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting
a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We presume that a sentence
within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
(2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of
correctness of within-guideline sentence).
- 2 -
Here, the district court followed the appropriate
procedures in sentencing Ingle, and we find no abuse of discretion
in its imposition of the 15-month sentence. We therefore find that
Ingle’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ingle’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Ingle, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Ingle 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 Ingle. 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 -