UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES EMMANUEL PARRISH,
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-00333-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 3, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW ALEXANDER PORTER & WHITLEY, PLLC,
Winston-Salem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles Emmanuel Parrish pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to dealing in firearms without a
license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a)
(2006). The district court sentenced Parrish to thirty-three
months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the
reasonableness of Parrish’s sentence. Parrish was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized
explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a
2
sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record with these standards in
mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Parrish’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Therefore,
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. We deny
counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform Parrish, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Parrish
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 Parrish. 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
3