United States v. Johnson , 281 F. App'x 201 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4883
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEY LEVI JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:06-cr-00990-HMH)
Submitted: June 3, 2008 Decided: June 13, 2008
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joey Levi Johnson appeals from his conviction and
fifteen-month sentence after pleading guilty to one count of felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000). Johnson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district
court erred in sentencing Johnson. Johnson was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has not done
so. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007);
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007)
(discussing procedure district courts must follow in sentencing
defendant). “A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
for within-guidelines sentence).
Here, the district court properly calculated the
guideline range, appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,
and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West
- 2 -
2000 & Supp. 2007). Johnson’s fifteen month sentence is the bottom
of the guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence
of ten years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2000).
Neither Johnson nor the record suggests any information so
compelling as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the
properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. We therefore
conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
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 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 -