UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY RASHON CARTER, a/k/a Larry Rashawn Carter,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-4390
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY RAYSHAWN CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (2:94-cr-00258-WO-1; 1:09-cr-00045-WO-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Rayshawn Carter 1 appeals from his convictions and
188-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to
distribution of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon (No. 10-4390). He also appeals from the
district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and
imposing a consecutive sentence of forty-eight months in prison
(No. 10-4389). On appeal, Carter’s attorney has filed an Anders 2
brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues in either
appeal but questioning whether Carter’s sentences were unduly
harsh. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Carter first asserts that the sentence imposed upon
revocation of his supervised release was substantively
unreasonable because it was imposed to run consecutively to the
sentence imposed for Carter’s convictions. However, Carter’s
forty-eight-month sentence was below the undisputed advisory
Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum. The district
court’s decision to run the revocation sentence consecutive to
the sentence on the underlying charges was authorized by statute
and is preferred under the Guidelines policy statements. See 18
1
Carter’s middle name is alternately referred to in court
documents as Rashan and Rashawn.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
3
U.S.C. § 3584 (2006); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4.) (2009). Carter provides no
argument as to why his below-Guidelines sentence is
unreasonable, and the record does not support the conclusion
that Carter’s sentence was unnecessarily harsh when measured
against the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010)
factors.
Similarly, Carter asserts that his 188-month sentence
was unduly harsh. However, his sentence was at the bottom of
his presumptively reasonable and undisputed advisory Guidelines
range. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th
Cir. 2008) (describing presumption of reasonableness), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). Carter provides no argument
rebutting this presumption, and our review of the record does
not disclose a meritorious claim of sentencing error.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in both appeals and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s convictions, the revocation of
his supervised release, and his sentences. We deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw at this time. 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
4
may renew his motion 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
5