UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON MICHAEL DOHOGN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00121-JAB-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 10, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Michael Dohogn appeals his conviction and the
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a machine
gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (2012). Counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Dohogn’s sentence is reasonable
in light of Dohogn’s challenge to the sentence enhancement for
possessing a firearm in connection with another felony. U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2014). Dohogn
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not done so.
Counsel correctly concedes that United States v. Barlow,
811 F.3d 133, 137-40 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2041 (2016), precludes Dohogn’s claim that his North Carolina
offense of breaking and entering a motor vehicle is not a felony
for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we
conclude that the district court did not err in its calculation
of the Guidelines range and imposition of a within-Guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“Any sentence that is within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
2
none. Accordingly, we affirm Dohogn’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Dohogn, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Dohogn requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Dohogn. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3