UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ALLEN TATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00025-LHT)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Nickerson, THE NICKERSON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Allen Tate was convicted of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and
was sentenced to 110 months in prison. Tate now appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Tate was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but did not file such a brief.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
sustain Tate’s conviction. See Glasser v. United States, 315
U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Officers executed a search warrant at a
residence, where they discovered a loaded revolver in a clothes
basket. Tate admitted to authorities that he had agreed to hold
the gun for another individual. It was stipulated that Tate had
been convicted of an offense punishable by a term of
imprisonment of more than one year and that the gun in question
had traveled in interstate commerce.
We further conclude that Tate’s sentence was
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007). We note that the court
correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and adequately stated its
2
reasons for imposing sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511
F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). *
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to
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 questions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not significantly aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
To the extent that there was a violation of Kimbrough v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), we note that Tate failed
to establish plain error in connection with the violation. See
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United
States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). Our recent
decision in United States v. Antonio, 311 F. App’x 679 (4th
Cir. 2009) (No. 07-4791) (unpublished), does not alter this
conclusion.
3