United States v. Fossett , 259 F. App'x 598 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VICTOR FOSSETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00010-RDB)
Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Stephen Matthew Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Fossett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (f) (2000).
Fossett was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment, which was the
low end of the advisory guidelines range. Counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Fossett
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so.
We find that the district court properly applied the
sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 151-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Additionally, we find that the
sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
accorded within-guidelines sentence).
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Fossett’s conviction and sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to
withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further
review. If Fossett requests that such a petition be filed, but
- 2 -
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 Fossett.
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 -