UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL DEVON MORRIS,
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-00456-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Devon Morris pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to one count of knowingly attempting to persuade,
induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sexual
activity, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 2422(b) (West Supp.
2010). The district court imposed the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. Counsel for Morris
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court fashioned a
reasonable sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
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, 49-50 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[g]uidelines 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).
2
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Morris, appropriately treating the
sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Morris’s guidelines range was 51 to
63 months but because of the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence, his range became 120 months. Morris’s 120-month
sentence, which is the statutory sentence the district court was
required to impose, may be presumed reasonable by this court.
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Morris, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Morris 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 Morris. We deny Morris’s motion to withdraw
counsel.
3
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