UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LATARISHA MICHELLE CRAWFORD,
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. (1:14-cr-00212-NCT-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2015 Decided: August 28, 2015
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Latarisha Michelle Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of
an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
(2012). The district court sentenced Crawford to 120 months of
imprisonment, and she now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Crawford was
informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
she has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th
Cir. 2015). In so doing, we first examines the sentence for any
procedural error, including “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)]
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if
the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 551
2
U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
for within Guidelines sentence).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the sentence is reasonable. The district court properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, responded to the
parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained the
chosen sentence. In addition, Crawford has failed to overcome
the presumption of reasonableness applied to her within-
Guidelines sentence.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Crawford, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Crawford 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 Crawford. 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
3