United States v. Little , 257 F. App'x 696 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4421
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AARON LAMONT LITTLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00360-WLO)
Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Lamont Little pled guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). The district court
sentenced him to 115 months’ imprisonment, three years of
supervised release, and a $100 assessment. Little timely appealed.
Little’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
sentence imposed was unduly harsh. Little did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, despite being notified of his right to do so.
The Government declined to file a responding brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 115-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. Accordingly, we affirm
Little’s conviction and sentence. We further deny counsel’s
- 2 -
pending motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel
inform Little, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Little requests
that such 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 Little.
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 -