United States v. Early , 250 F. App'x 548 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN LATIFF EARLY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00066-NCT)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 12, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior
Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael
Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Shawn Latiff Early pled guilty
to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). The
district court sentenced Early to eighty-three months in prison.
Early appeals his conviction and sentence. His attorney has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
finding no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable. Early
also filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging his sentence.
We affirm.
In imposing a sentence after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005), a court still must calculate the applicable guideline
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-
Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range
and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines
sentence).
- 2 -
The district court sentenced Early only after considering and
examining the sentencing guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as
instructed by Booker. Early’s eighty—three—month prison term is
within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and well
within the ten-year statutory maximum sentence set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(a)(2). Neither Early nor the record suggests any
information so compelling as to rebut the presumption that the
sentence is reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is
reasonable.
We have reviewed Early’s pro se supplemental brief and find
the issue he raises meritless. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have
found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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 -