UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HENRY MOORE, JR., a/k/a June Bug,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00012-F-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Keating Wiles, CHESHIRE, PARKER, SCHNEIDER, BRYAN & VITALE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Moore, Jr., pled guilty to possession
with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base
(“crack”) and a quantity of cocaine, and to carrying a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 2010). Moore was sentenced to 120
months of imprisonment for the drug violation and to a
consecutive sixty-month term for the gun violation. On appeal,
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but raising the following issue: whether the district
court erred in sentencing Moore to sixty months of imprisonment
for the § 924(c) violation, when it first stated that it was
going to impose a twenty-four-month sentence for the violation.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review Moore’s sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, considered
the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) factors,
analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see
2
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). If
the sentence imposed is within the Sentencing Guidelines range,
we apply a presumption of reasonableness. Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). We note that
Moore’s disputed sixty-month sentence for his § 924(c) violation
and his 120-month sentence for his distribution conviction are
statutory minimum sentences and are not otherwise subject to
error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Moore’s convictions and sentences. This
court requires that counsel inform Moore, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Moore 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 Moore. 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