UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4966
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON DOMINIQUE WILKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00394-TDS-1)
Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Dominique Wilks pled guilty to possession of a
firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). His attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
the reasonableness of the 120-month sentence in light of the
court’s refusal to vary from the Guidelines range based upon a
proposed amendment to the computation of criminal history
points. Wilks filed a supplemental brief. * We affirm.
An appellate court reviews a 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. First, the court must assess
whether the district court properly calculated the 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
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). The
*
Wilks challenges the district court’s application of an
enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with
another felony offense. We have reviewed the record and
conclude that this claim is without merit. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6) & cmt. n.14(C) (2009).
2
court also must consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding
that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the record, we conclude that
Wilks’ sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
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 Wilks, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Wilks 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 Wilks. 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