UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS EUGENE ROSS, a/k/a Doorknob,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (7:07-cr-00401-GRA-1)
Submitted: July 17, 2008 Decided: August 14, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Eugene Ross pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2000), and the district court
sentenced him to 180 months in prison and five years of supervised
release. On appeal, Ross’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in her
opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising
the issues of whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Ross’s guilty plea, and whether the
district court committed plain error in sentencing him to 180
months in prison. Ross was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Appellate counsel first questions whether the district
court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ross’s guilty
plea, but she alleges no error by the district court and concludes
the court fully complied with the rule. Because Ross did not move
in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review any
challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We
have reviewed the record and find no plain error in the district
court’s acceptance of Ross’s guilty plea.
Appellate counsel next questions whether the district
court committed plain error in sentencing Ross to serve 180 months
- 2 -
in prison, but she alleges no error and concludes the district
court did not err and his sentence is not unreasonable.
We review Ross’s sentence for abuse of discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). The first step
in this review requires us to ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the guideline range. United States v. Osborne, 514
F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128
S. Ct. at 597. We presume that a sentence within a properly
calculated guideline 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 (2007) (upholding our presumption).
In sentencing, the district court should first calculate
the guideline range and give the parties an opportunity to argue
for the sentence they deem appropriate. United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The court should then consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors to determine whether they
support the sentence requested by either party. Id. While a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its
sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the record,
particularly when the court imposes a sentence within a properly
calculated guideline range. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d
- 3 -
339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). “[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply
the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily
require lengthy explanation.” Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468.
We have reviewed the record and find Ross’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the district court
did not err or abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.
First, the district court properly calculated Ross’s guideline
range. Because Ross had three or more prior convictions for a
violent felony and/or serious drug offense, his offense level under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 (2006) was thirty-three
before his three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
With a criminal history category VI and the fifteen-year mandatory
minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), Ross’s advisory guideline range
was 180 to 210 months in prison followed by three to five years of
supervised release. After considering the guidelines as advisory
and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court
reasonably determined a sentence of 180 months in prison and five
years of supervised release was appropriate.
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 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,
- 4 -
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
- 5 -