Case ID: f-appx_197/html/0272-01.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. Carl Edward BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-4184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 5, 2006.
    Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Carl Edward Bennett pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Bennett to thirty-three months of imprisonment. Bennett’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it was greater than necessary to serve the ends of justice. Bennett was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

In sentencing Bennett, the district court considered the properly calculated advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006). The sentence imposed is within the guideline range and well below the ten-year statutory maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000). Under these circumstances, we find that Bennett’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345-46 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) (stating that “a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range ... is presumptively reasonable”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 thereof 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.