UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID ALAN HILL,
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-00013-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael Meinecke,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Alan Hill appeals the 162-month sentence imposed
following a guilty plea to two counts of robbery affecting
interstate commerce and brandishing a firearm during and in
relation to robbery. On appeal, Hill’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he concludes that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but questions the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Hill was informed of his right to file a supplemental
pro se brief, but he has failed to file one. We affirm.
Hill contends that the sentencing court made improper
inferences from the evidence regarding his susceptible
personality when it imposed a sentence at the top of the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. When reviewing a sentence
for substantive reasonableness, we take into account “the
totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We accord a sentence within a
properly-calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of
reasonableness. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261
(4th Cir. 2008). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18
U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a) [(West 2000 & Supp. 2011)] factors.” United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
2
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court properly analyzed the arguments presented by Hill
and appropriately imposed a sentence at the top of the
Guidelines range. The court considered the mitigating
circumstances raised by Hill and rejected the contention that
they supported a lower sentence. Moreover, the court noted
that, in the absence of Hill’s cooperation, the court may have
accepted the probation officer’s recommendation of an upward
variance. Finally, Hill received the sentence which he
requested. Taking into account the totality of the
circumstances and the court’s explicit consideration of Hill’s
arguments, we can find no abuse of discretion, and so, we
conclude that Hill’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we reviewed the entire
record in this case and found no meritorious claims. Therefore,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the 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 may move in this court 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
3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4