UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS LAUREN PFOFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (7:06-cr-00069-FL-1)
Submitted: May 15, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Thomas Lauren Pfoff appeals from his robbery and
firearm convictions and his 300-month sentence entered pursuant
to his guilty plea. Pfoff’s counsel has filed an Anders * brief,
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Pfoff and the Government have declined to file briefs. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm.
After signing a detailed plea agreement, Pfoff pled
guilty following a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy. He
testified that he was fully satisfied with his attorney and that
he was pleading guilty voluntarily. Subsequently, the district
court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing
Pfoff, appropriately treating the Guidelines as advisory,
referencing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), and providing an individualized assessment based on the
facts presented. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
596-97 (2007). Pfoff’s sentence was the sentence the parties
agreed to as appropriate in the plea agreement; moreover, as it
was within the Guidelines range, we may presume that it was
reasonable. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007).
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
Our review of the record showed no meritorious issues
for review. Accordingly, we affirm Pfoff’s convictions and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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, 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 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