UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MCCOY FERRELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00142-CCE-1)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David McCoy Ferrell, Jr., pled guilty to possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced
him to 46 months’ imprisonment. Ferrell’s counsel filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether the court erred by finding
that Ferrell possessed the firearm in connection with another
felony offense. Ferrell has filed a pro se supplemental brief,
addressing the same issue. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We have reviewed Ferrell’s sentence and conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in finding that the
possession of the firearm was in connection with the felony
offense of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and
deliver. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217-18
(4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the sentence imposed was reasonable.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United
States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The
district court followed the necessary procedural steps in
sentencing Ferrell, appropriately treated the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of Ferrell’s individual
2
characteristics and history. We conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of
reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Ferrell, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ferrell 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 Ferrell. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3