United States v. Owens ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4266
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LORENSO OWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00181)
Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard E. Beam, Jr., HUBBARD & BEAM, Gastonia, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenso Owens pled guilty to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000)
(Count 1), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial
number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2000) (Count 2). The
district court sentenced Owens to sixty-three months’ imprisonment
on Count 1 and sixty months’ imprisonment on Count 2, to be served
concurrently with one another, two years of supervised release on
each count, to be served concurrently with one another, and ordered
payment of a $200 statutory assessment.* Owens’ counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether Owens’ sentence was reasonable. Owens was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has
not done so.
We find to be without merit Owens’ challenge to his
sentence. In sentencing Owens, the district court considered the
properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range, along
with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006), and imposed a sentence within the guidelines
range. Under these circumstances, we find that Owens’ sentence is
*
The probation officer calculated an advisory sentencing
guideline range applicable to Owens of sixty-three to seventy-eight
months’ imprisonment, founded on a total offense level of twenty-
two and a criminal history category of IV.
- 2 -
reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006) (A sentence imposed
“within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is
presumptively reasonable.”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Owens’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client.
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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -