UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4332
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EARL DWIGHT GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00153-JAB-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Dwight Green pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to 180
months imprisonment. Green’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in sentencing Green. Green has
also filed a supplemental pro se brief. 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). Here, the district
2
court followed the appropriate procedures in sentencing Green, and
we find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of the 180-month
sentence. We therefore find that Green’s sentence is reasonable.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Green asserts that the
district court erred in failing to apply Amendment 709 of the
Sentencing Guidelines in determining his sentence. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) App. C, Supp. 2007, amend. 709
(revising USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2), which controls whether prior
convictions are “counted separately” under USSG § 4B1.2(c) and, in
turn, whether a defendant is a “career offender”). We have
reviewed Green’s presentence report and find that the revised
guideline would have no impact on his sentence, given the number of
prior qualifying offenses.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Green’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Green, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Green 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 Green. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4