UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4716
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES SHORON GROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:05-cr-00441-PJM-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 15, 2009
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. McKenna, BRENNAN, SULLIVAN & MCKENNA, LLP, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Chan Park, Assistant United States
Attorney Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Shoron Gross pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
846 (2006). The district court sentenced him to 188 months of
imprisonment, and Gross timely appealed.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, in which he
states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether the sentence was reasonable. Gross was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a
brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for
procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007). The court considers the totality of the circumstances
in assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
This court presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States,
127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). In considering
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
the district court’s application of the Guidelines, this court
reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions
de novo. United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir.
2006).
The district court correctly calculated Gross’
Guidelines 2 range. The court then granted the Government’s
motion for a departure, and further varied downward. The 188-
month sentence is thirty-two months below the Guidelines range
after the court granted the Government’s departure motion, and
is within the applicable statutory maximum. Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that Gross’ 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 Gross’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Gross, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Gross 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 Gross.
2
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007).
3
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