Case ID: f-appx_172/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Anthony MOORE, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4953.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2006.
    Decided March 28, 2006.
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Anthony Moore, Jr., appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(B)(i) (2000). Moore’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising three issues but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although he was advised of his right to do so, Moore did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Moore, through counsel, asserts that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. We find that Moore’s sentence, which was imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range and was the statutory mandatory minimum, was reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Moore’s conviction and sentence. 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 there of 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