US v. Anthony Harris
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY DECARLOS HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00175-BO-1)
April 20, 2009
May 13, 2009
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC, Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Anthony Decarlos Harris pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Harris was
sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment and now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm. In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether Harris' sentence was substantively unreasonable. A sentence is reviewed
for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Seay, 553 F.3d 732, 742 (4th Cir. 2009). The
appellate court must first determine whether the district court committed any "significant procedural error," Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597, and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d
155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008); see also Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). 2
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the district court committed no procedural error in calculating the sentence. Furthermore, we find that the district court's
within-guidelines sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Harris' conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Harris, in writing, of the right to petition review. the If Supreme Harris Court of the that United a States be for further but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Harris. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
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?