UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4612
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PAUL MATTHEW BRIM,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2010
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United
States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Matthew Brim appeals his sentence to 200 months
in prison and five years of supervised release imposed after he
pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). Brim’s
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether
the district court erred in imposing a sentence of 200 months
imprisonment. Brim was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the guideline range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence
within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Brim, and his sentence within his advisory guideline range is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly determined he was an armed career criminal and that his
guideline range was 180 to 210 months based on the mandatory
minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), a total offense level of
thirty, and a criminal history category of VI. Because Brim had
thirty criminal history points and many of his offenses were
violent crimes, the probation officer noted an upward departure
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1) (2008)
might be warranted and recommended a sentence at the high end of
the guideline range to protect the public and serve as a measure
of deterrence. Brim’s attorney contended a sentence within the
guideline range would comport with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
requested that the district court consider Brim’s history and
characteristics in determining an appropriate sentence.
In sentencing Brim to 200 months, the district court
considered the guidelines on an advisory basis, the arguments of
counsel, statements of the defendant, and the § 3553(a) factors.
The district court noted that Brim, as a convicted felon, knew
he could not possess a firearm; had been involved in criminal
activity for more than twenty years; had twice the number of
criminal history points to qualify for a category VI; and by all
3
accounts was a habitual criminal and felon. Moreover, four of
his prior offense were for violent felonies. The district court
noted it had taken into account the need for the punishment to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public
from his further crimes. Thus, the court properly concluded a
200-month sentence was reasonable in this case.
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
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