United States v. Wheless , 355 F. App'x 683 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-4509
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RODERICK WARNER WHELESS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.        William L.
    Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00230-WO-1)
    Submitted:    November 13, 2009             Decided:   December 3, 2009
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellant.     Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Roderick Warner Wheless appeals the 272-month sentence
    imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to armed bank
    robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a
    crime of violence.     Wheless’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting that, in
    his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
    raising the issue of whether Wheless’s sentence on the robbery
    count is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
    accomplish the goals of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2006).           Wheless was
    informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he
    has not done so.    We affirm.
    We review a sentence for abuse of discretion.         Gall v.
    United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007).        The first step in this
    review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
    no significant procedural error.        United States v. Evans, 
    526 F.3d 155
    , 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 476
     (2008).
    Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to consider the
    § 3553(a) factors.’”       United States v. Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 329
    (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 
    128 S. Ct. at 597
    ).               We then
    consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking
    into account the totality of the circumstances.          Gall, 
    128 S. Ct. at 597
    .   When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume a
    sentence   within    the    properly-calculated   Guideline    range   is
    2
    reasonable.       United States v. Allen, 
    491 F.3d 178
    , 193 (4th Cir.
    2007).
    We     have    reviewed      the       record       and    conclude     that     the
    district     court      did     not    abuse       its    discretion         in    sentencing
    Wheless,    and    his     sentence,       which     is     at    the    low      end   of   the
    Guideline range, is reasonable.                    On appeal, Wheless’s attorney
    argues that the district court did not attach enough weight to
    the history and characteristics of the defendant, resulting in a
    sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).             However, he acknowledges that the district
    court sentenced Wheless as counsel requested, at the bottom of
    his advisory Guideline range.                  We find that the district court
    considered        the     parties’      arguments          and        relevant      § 3553(a)
    factors,   including          Wheless’s     history        and    characteristics,           and
    the court reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the
    advisory range.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.      We    therefore       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
    3
    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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-4509

Citation Numbers: 355 F. App'x 683

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/3/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024