Case ID: f-appx_259/html/0598-02.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. Victor FOSSETT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4415.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 16, 2007.
    Decided: Dec. 27, 2007.
    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender-, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen Matthew Schenning, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Victor Fossett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (0 (2000). Fossett was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment, which was the low end of the advisory guidelines range. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Fossett was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

We find that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing factors before imposing the 151-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, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (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. We therefore affirm Fossett’s conviction and sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If Fossett 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 Fossett.

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.