United States v. Moye ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4988
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LYSANDORE MOYE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00366-JAB-2)
    Submitted:   April 28, 2011                   Decided:   May 2, 2011
    Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnathan Leonard, LEONARD LAW FIRM, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
    United   States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lysandore    Moye    pleaded   guilty      to    theft     of   firearms
    from a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (u),      924(m)   (2006),   and    two       counts   of     felon    in
    possession of firearms, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1),
    924(a)(2) (2006).          Counsel for Moye filed a brief in accordance
    with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), certifying that
    there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
    whether the district court fashioned a reasonable sentence in
    light     of    the   firearm      enhancements     for    both     the      number     of
    firearms involved and for trafficking of the firearms. *                               The
    Government elected not to file a brief.                    Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm.
    A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
    When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
    the     appropriate        advisory    Sentencing      Guidelines          range       and
    consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2006).              Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    ,
    49-50 (2007).         Appellate review of a district court’s imposition
    of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
    outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion.                             
    Id. at 41
    .     Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be
    *
    Moye did not object to the sentencing enhancements.
    2
    presumed       by    the    appellate         court          to   be   reasonable.        United
    States v. Pauley, 
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
    The district court followed the necessary procedural
    steps in sentencing Moye, appropriately treating the Sentencing
    Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
    applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
    factors.                 See      U.S.        Sentencing               Guidelines        Manual,
    §§ 2k2.1(b)(1)(C), (b)(5), cmt. n.13(D) (2009).                                Moye’s sentence
    is within the properly calculated Guidelines range and may be
    presumed reasonable by this court.                           Pauley, 
    511 F.3d at 473
    .         We
    conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    imposing the chosen sentence.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Moye, in writing, of the right to
    petition   the       Supreme         Court    of       the    United     States   for    further
    review.    If Moye 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 Moye.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions           are    adequately             presented    in    the    materials
    3
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4988

Judges: Davis, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 5/2/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024