US v. Little
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AARON LAMONT LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00360-WLO)
October 31, 2007
December 18, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Aaron Lamont Little pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), him to 115 924(a)(2) months' (2000). The district three court of
supervised release, and a $100 assessment. Little timely appealed. Little's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was unduly harsh. Little did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, despite being notified of his right to do so. The Government declined to file a responding brief. error, we affirm. We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing 18 U.S.C.A. Finding no
factors before imposing the 115-month sentence. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
Additionally, we find that the
sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
accorded within-guidelines sentence). Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Little's conviction and sentence. Accordingly, we affirm
We further deny counsel's
- 2 -
pending motion to withdraw.
This court requires that counsel
inform Little, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Little requests
that such 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 Little. 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?