UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SAMMY LEE ELLIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-01075-HFF-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Ellis, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Ellis to twenty-one months of imprisonment, and he now
appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable.
Ellis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so
doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines
as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence . . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Finally, we “then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed.” Id. We presume on appeal that a sentence within a
2
properly calculated advisory guidelines range is reasonable.
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the sentence is reasonable. The district court properly
calculated the guidelines range, considered the guidelines range
along with the § 3553(a) factors, and explained its chosen
sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-30
(4th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming that sentencing court must make
individualized assessment on the record and explain rejection of
parties’ arguments for sentence outside guidelines range).
Moreover, Ellis has failed to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness we accord to his within-guidelines sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Ellis, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ellis 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 Ellis. We dispense with
3
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