UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4785
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY DECARLOS HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00175-BO-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 13, 2009
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC, Warrenton,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Decarlos Harris pleaded guilty to possession
of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Harris was
sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment and now appeals.
His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so.
We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether Harris’
sentence was substantively unreasonable. A sentence is reviewed
for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also
United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir. 2009). The
appellate court must first determine whether the district court
committed any “significant procedural error,” Gall, 128 S. Ct.
at 597, and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence
within the guidelines range. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008); see
also Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption
of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
2
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that
the district court committed no procedural error in calculating
the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court’s
within-guidelines 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 Harris’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Harris 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 Harris.
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