US v. Larry Ferguson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cr-00163-JMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998937269]. [12-4212]

Appeal: 12-4212

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY MICHAEL FERGUSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:11-cr-00163-JMC-1)

Submitted:

September 10, 2012

Decided:

September 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4212

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry Michael Ferguson pleaded guilty to possession of
a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense
punishable

by

a

term

exceeding

one

year

of

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).

imprisonment,

in

The district court

sentenced Ferguson to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence
of 180 months of imprisonment and he now appeals.

Appellate

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S.

738

(1967),

reasonable.

questioning

whether

the

sentence

Ferguson has also filed a pro se supplemental brief

raising additional issues. *
Counsel

Finding no error, we affirm.

questions

whether

the

sentence

statutory mandatory minimum term was reasonable.
sentence

for

standard.

was

reasonableness,

applying

an

abuse

of

the

We review a
of

discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see

also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
In so doing, we examine the sentence for “significant procedural
error,”

including

“failing

to

calculate

(or

improperly

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory,
[(2006)]

failing
factors,

to

consider

selecting

a

*

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

§

3553(a)

on

clearly

We have considered the issues raised in Ferguson’s pro se
brief and conclude they lack merit.

2

Appeal: 12-4212

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/13/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.”

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

We will presume on appeal

that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range is reasonable.

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193

(4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
(2007)

(upholding

presumption

within-Guidelines sentence).
record

and

conclude

that

of

reasonableness

for

We have thoroughly reviewed the

the

sentence

was

procedurally

and

substantively reasonable.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal.
court.
writing,

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

This court requires that counsel inform Ferguson, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Ferguson 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 Ferguson.

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
3