UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVY CHRISTOPHER WYATT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00322-NCT-1)
Submitted: June 12, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Davy Christopher Wyatt pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Wyatt as a career offender to 262 months’
imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but states that Wyatt’s
sentence is unreasonable because it is unduly harsh. Wyatt was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence, the district court 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, 552 U.S. 38, __, 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 Wyatt, appropriately treating the Guidelines
2
as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable
Guidelines range, and discussing the applicable § 3553(a)
factors. Furthermore, Wyatt’s sentence, which is the low end of
the advisory Guidelines range and well below the applicable
statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 &
Supp. 2009) (prescribing maximum of life imprisonment for
offenses involving five grams or more of cocaine base and a
prior felony drug conviction), may be presumed reasonable by
this court. Thus, we conclude 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. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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 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
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4