Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04415/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04415-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Fossett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VICTOR FOSSETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:07-cr-00010-RDB)

Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4415 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Victor Fossett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement

to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (f) (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 (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, 127 S. Ct.

2456, 2462-69 (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

Appeal: 07-4415 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 07-4415 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 3 of 3