US v. Larry Brooks

Filing 920081016

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY ALLEN BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cr-01223-PMD-1)

Submitted:

October 14, 2008

Decided:

October 16, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Larry Allen Brooks pled guilty to possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. months in prison.

Brooks was sentenced to fifty-one His attorney has filed a

He now appeals.

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious claims for appeal. Brooks was advised of his right to file a We affirm.

pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so.

In the Anders brief, counsel first questions whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but

concludes that it did.

Our review of the transcript discloses Further, the transcript reveals

full compliance with the Rule.

that Brooks entered his guilty plea intelligently, voluntarily and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences of his plea. Brooks' Guidelines range as initially calculated was fifty-one to sixty-three months. fifty-one month of sentence a was Counsel questions whether the reasonable. sentence under We an review abuse the of

reasonableness

criminal

discretion standard. 594-97 (2007). of

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, Reasonableness both the review procedural Id. requires and appellate substantive

consideration

reasonableness of a sentence. correctly calculated Brooks' 2

Here, the district court Guidelines range,

advisory

considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) its (West 2000 for & Supp. 2008), and See In

adequately

explained

reason

imposing

sentence.

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). addition, Guidelines Brooks' range, sentence, was at the low end of the

advisory United Thus, we

presumptively

reasonable.

States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). find no abuse of discretion.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no

meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

This

court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be

counsel

believes

that

petition

frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy of We dispense with oral

the motion was served on the client.

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

3