UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4605
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KYLE DAVID GROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:10-cr-00041-HFF-1)
Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina;
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kyle David Gross pled guilty to possession of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B) (2006),
and was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. Gross’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, Gross 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
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
2
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 Gross. The court considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the 96-month
sentence was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances
of the offense. We conclude that Gross’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Gross’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Gross, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Gross 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 Gross.
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