UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4657
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAE JAVAR COMPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00090-TDS-1)
Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Trae Javar Compton appeals his conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), and his 120-month sentence. On appeal,
counsel for Compton filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erroneously denied Compton’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion for acquittal. Compton filed a pro se supplemental brief
asserting that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and that counsel was ineffective. The Government
has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
This court reviews the denial of a Rule 29 motion de
novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.
2005). The jury’s verdict must be sustained “if there is
substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the
Government, to support it.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d
210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks, brackets and
citations omitted). A comprehensive review of the record
confirms that the Government presented sufficient evidence on
each element of the offense to support the jury’s verdict. We
therefore affirm Compton’s conviction.
We next review Compton’s sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This requires consideration of
both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th
Cir. 2010). After determining whether the district court
correctly calculated Compton’s advisory Guidelines range, this
court examines whether the court considered the § 3553(a)
factors, analyzed the arguments presented by the parties, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at
575-76; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009). We conclude that the district court’s imposition of a
within-Guidelines sentence was both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. We therefore affirm Compton’s
sentence.
We further find Compton’s challenge to the district
court’s jurisdiction to be without merit. To the extent that
Compton challenges his counsel’s effectiveness, the record does
not conclusively establish any deficient performance and thus
his claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v.
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v.
King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Pursuant to this court’s obligations under Anders, we
have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no
meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Compton, in
3
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Compton 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 Compton.
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