United States v. Moon , 301 F. App'x 246 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD CRAIG MOON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cr-00638-GRA-1)
Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Craig Moon appeals his conviction and 180-month
sentence following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2),
924(e) (2006). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
Moon’s sentence is reasonable, but concluding there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Moon has filed a pro se
supplemental brief challenging his armed career criminal
designation.1 We affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence imposed by the district
court if it is within the statutorily prescribed range and is
reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th
Cir. 2005). The court reviews Moon’s sentence under a deferential
abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 590 (2007).
The first step in this review requires the court to
ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as improperly calculating the guideline range. United
States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128
S. Ct. 2525 (2008). The court then considers the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We may
1
The Government elected not to file a brief.
2
presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007)
(upholding our presumption of reasonableness).
In imposing the sentence, the district court considered
the properly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Because Moon had three or more
prior convictions for a “violent felony” and/or “serious drug
offense” committed on occasions different from one another, he was
an armed career criminal subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of
180 months’ imprisonment under § 924(e) and U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.4 (2006).2 We conclude that the
180-month sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Moon’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Moon, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Moon requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
2
We have considered Moon’s pro se challenge to the armed
career criminal designation and find that his unsupported and
conclusory allegations fail to establish the invalidity of his
prior convictions. See United States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105, 109
(4th Cir. 1992).
3
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Moon.
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