UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY ALLEN BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:07-cr-01223-PMD-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Allen Brooks pled guilty to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. Brooks was sentenced to fifty-one
months in prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious
claims for appeal. Brooks was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel first questions whether
the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but
concludes that it did. Our review of the transcript discloses
full compliance with the Rule. Further, the transcript reveals
that Brooks entered his guilty plea intelligently, voluntarily
and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences of
his plea.
Brooks’ Guidelines range as initially calculated was
fifty-one to sixty-three months. Counsel questions whether the
fifty-one month sentence was reasonable. We review the
reasonableness of a criminal sentence under an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
594-97 (2007). Reasonableness review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. Here, the district court
correctly calculated Brooks’ advisory Guidelines range,
2
considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth
at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and
adequately explained its reason for imposing sentence. See
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). In
addition, Brooks’ sentence, at the low end of the advisory
Guidelines range, was presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, we
find no abuse of discretion.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This
court requires 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of
the motion 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