UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WOMACK, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00176-CCE-1)
Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Womack, Jr., appeals the forty-one-month sentence
imposed after his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), and making false statements, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1033(a)(1) (2006). Womack’s counsel submitted a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for review but
questioning the reasonableness of Womack’s sentence. Womack was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. We affirm.
This court reviews Womack’s sentence for
reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United 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). Our review of the record
confirms that Womack’s within-Guidelines sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See United States v.
Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (stating that sentence
within correctly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable on appeal), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
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
2
requires that counsel inform Womack, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Womack 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 Womack. 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