UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROGER BRIAN FAUSNETT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00206-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Roger Brian
Fausnett pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by
an unlawful drug user, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
(2006). The district court sentenced Fausnett to twenty-seven
months of imprisonment. In this appeal, counsel for Fausnett
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court erred in imposing an
unduly harsh sentence. Fausnett did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do
so. The Government elected not to file an answering brief. We
affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a
sentence. Id. This court must assess whether the district
court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. This court presumes a sentence within a
properly determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively
2
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We conclude Fausnett’s sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The district court properly
calculated Fausnett’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines
as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473
(4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based the
sentence on its “individualized assessment” of the facts of the
case, and clearly stated its reasons for rejecting Fausnett’s
request for a variance sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 584-85 (4th Cir. 2010). Fausnett has not rebutted the
presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable. See United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69
(4th Cir. 2010). Thus, 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 deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm
Fausnett’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Fausnett, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Fausnett requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew
3
his motion for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Fausnett.
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