UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY MICHAEL FERGUSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:11-cr-00163-JMC-1)
Submitted: September 10, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Michael Ferguson pleaded guilty to possession of
a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense
punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Ferguson to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence
of 180 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was
reasonable. Ferguson has also filed a pro se supplemental brief
raising additional issues. * Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel questions whether the sentence of the
statutory mandatory minimum term was reasonable. 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. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant 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)
[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
*
We have considered the issues raised in Ferguson’s pro se
brief and conclude they lack merit.
2
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We will presume on appeal
that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence). We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and conclude that the sentence was procedurally and
substantively reasonable.
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 Ferguson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Ferguson 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 Ferguson. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3