UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW ISAAC JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00195-NCT-1)
Submitted: October 24, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Isaac Jackson pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Jackson was
sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we
affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Counsel also questions whether Jackson’s sentence
is reasonable. Jackson was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government
elected not to file a responding brief.
Because Jackson did not seek to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court, any alleged Rule 11 error is
reviewed by this court for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish
plain error, Jackson must show that an error occurred, that the
error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial
rights. United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir.
2005). We have reviewed the record and find no error.
Jackson also questions whether his sentence is
reasonable. When determining a sentence, the district court
2
must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and
consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition
of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 591. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be
presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States
v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Jackson, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Jackson’s sentence,
which is at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range and
is the statutory mandatory minimum, may be presumed reasonable.
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 a
3
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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
4