UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIUS TREMAYNE BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00071-WO-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Tremayne Brooks pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Brooks was
sentenced by the district court to ninety-six months’
imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the
reasonableness of Brooks’ sentence. Brooks filed a pro se
supplemental brief, contending that the sentencing enhancements
for armed robbery and kidnapping are erroneous because he
believes he will be acquitted of the offenses when he goes to
trial in state court. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory 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 also United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized
2
explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a
sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range
is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
217 (4th Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed the record with these standards in
mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Brooks’
sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Therefore,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his 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 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 in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3