UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LYSANDORE MOYE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00366-JAB-2)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnathan Leonard, LEONARD LAW FIRM, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lysandore Moye pleaded guilty to theft of firearms
from a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(u), 924(m) (2006), and two counts of felon in
possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for Moye filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court fashioned a reasonable sentence in
light of the firearm enhancements for both the number of
firearms involved and for trafficking of the firearms. * The
Government elected not to file a brief. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and
consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
49-50 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition
of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 41. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be
*
Moye did not object to the sentencing enhancements.
2
presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Moye, appropriately treating the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual,
§§ 2k2.1(b)(1)(C), (b)(5), cmt. n.13(D) (2009). Moye’s sentence
is within the properly calculated Guidelines range and may be
presumed reasonable by this court. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We
conclude that 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. This court
requires that counsel inform Moye, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Moye 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 Moye.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4