UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4568
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRE’S DAVIS, a/k/a Trey Davis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cr-00031-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Steven
Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tre’s Davis pled guilty to possession of a firearm by
a prohibited person, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006), and distribution
of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006), and was sentenced to 63
months’ imprisonment. Davis’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of Davis’ sentence. Although advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Davis has not done
so. We affirm.
We review Davis’ sentence for reasonableness, applying
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 the sentence.
Id.; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
After determining whether the district court correctly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, this court must decide
whether the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) 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). If the sentence is free of significant procedural
error, this court will review the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575; United States v. Pauley,
2
511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). In doing so, we presume that
a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Davis’
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Moreover, Davis has failed to overcome the presumption of
reasonableness we accord his within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence. We deny
counsel’s request to withdraw at this time. This court requires
that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may again
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Davis.
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