UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RAY CHARLES PAGE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00024-NCT-1)
Submitted: June 27, 2011 Decided: July 12, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles H. Harp, II, CHARLES H. HARP, II, P.C., Lexington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Charles Page pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). The district court calculated Page’s
Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(2009) at seventy to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment and
sentenced Page to seventy months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
counsel 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 whether the district court
abused its discretion in imposing sentence. We affirm.
We review Page’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). In conducting this review, we “must first ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)
the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51.
“When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
2
quotation marks and emphasis omitted), and must “adequately
explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate
review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing,” Gall,
552 U.S. at 50. “When imposing a sentence within the
Guidelines, however, the [district court’s] explanation need not
be elaborate or lengthy because [G]uidelines sentences
themselves are in many ways tailored to the individual and
reflect approximately two decades of close attention to federal
sentencing policy.” United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267,
271 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
procedural error, we must consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the
totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the
sentence is within the appropriate Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. See
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing “that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated
and considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument
from counsel and allocution from Page. The court considered
3
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of the offense and Page’s history and
characteristics. Further, neither counsel nor Page offers any
grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that the
within-Guidelines sentence of seventy months’ imprisonment is
substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Page.
In accordance with Anders, we have also reviewed the
remainder of 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 Page,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Page 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 Page.
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
4