UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4432
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ATHEY,
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-00325-TDS-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Michael Athey pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to using and carrying a firearm during
and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(1)(A)(ii), (B)(ii) (2006), and was sentenced to 327 months
imprisonment. Athey’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Although informed
of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Athey has not
done so. For the reasons that follow, 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 consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
First, this court must assess whether the district court
properly calculated the 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 United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). We also must consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the
totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
2
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated and
considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from
counsel and allocution from Athey. The court considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of the offense. Further, Athey offers no grounds
to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines
sentence of 327 months imprisonment is substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Athey.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Athey, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Athey 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 Athey. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4