United States v. Bryan Egress

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN KEITH EGRESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN KEITH EGRESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00027-IMK-JSK-1; 1:12-cr-00099-IMK-1)
Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 31, 2013
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Keith Egress appeals the forty-one-month
sentence he received after he pled guilty to possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2) (2006), and to failing to register as a sex
offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2006). Egress’
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he could identify no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing
factors and whether Egress’ sentence is substantively
reasonable. We affirm.
As counsel properly recognizes, the district court is
not required to talismanically invoke every single factor noted
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) as long as it provides “some
indication” that it considered the factors and evaluated any
nonfrivolous arguments raised by the defendant at sentencing.
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.
2006). Moreover, a sentence falling within a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively substantively
reasonable, and counsel’s brief identifies nothing that would
suffice to disturb that presumption. United States v. Susi, 674
F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). Having reviewed the record, we
can only conclude that the district court discharged its duty to
3
consider the pertinent sentencing factors and imposed a sentence
that was substantively reasonable.
Egress has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which
he claims that his guilty plea is invalid because he was
incompetent to enter it, and that his sentence is infirm because
the district court did not adequately delve into his mental
health records. We have reviewed each of Egress’ assertions and
conclude that they are without merit. See United States v.
Banks, 482 F.3d 733, 742-43 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he
rigorous plain-error standard applies to unpreserved claims of
procedural sentencing error.”).
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 judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Egress, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Egress 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 Egress. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
4
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5