US v. Aaron Dohogn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00121-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999907615]. [15-4615]

Appeal: 15-4615

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON MICHAEL DOHOGN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00121-JAB-1)

Submitted:

July 29, 2016

Decided:

August 10, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4615

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aaron

Michael

Dohogn

appeals

his

conviction

and

the

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession of a machine
gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (2012).

Counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Dohogn’s sentence is reasonable
in light of Dohogn’s challenge to the sentence enhancement for
possessing a firearm in connection with another felony.
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)

(2014).

U.S.
Dohogn

was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not done so.
Counsel correctly concedes that United States v. Barlow,
811 F.3d 133, 137-40 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2041 (2016), precludes Dohogn’s claim that his North Carolina
offense of breaking and entering a motor vehicle is not a felony
for

purposes

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines.

Accordingly,

we

conclude that the district court did not err in its calculation
of the Guidelines range and imposition of a within-Guidelines
sentence.

See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir. 2014) (“Any sentence that is within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found
2

Appeal: 15-4615

none.

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we affirm Dohogn’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform Dohogn, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Dohogn requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Dohogn.

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