UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODERICK WARNER WHELESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L.
Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00230-WO-1)
Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Warner Wheless appeals the 272-month sentence
imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to armed bank
robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence. Wheless’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in
his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the issue of whether Wheless’s sentence on the robbery
count is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Wheless was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he
has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008).
Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329
(4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). We then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume a
sentence within the properly-calculated Guideline range is
2
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Wheless, and his sentence, which is at the low end of the
Guideline range, is reasonable. On appeal, Wheless’s attorney
argues that the district court did not attach enough weight to
the history and characteristics of the defendant, resulting in a
sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, he acknowledges that the district
court sentenced Wheless as counsel requested, at the bottom of
his advisory Guideline range. We find that the district court
considered the parties’ arguments and relevant § 3553(a)
factors, including Wheless’s history and characteristics, and
the court reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the
advisory range.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 in this court for leave to
3
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
4