Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04194/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Lewis Kirkpatrick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARRY LEWIS KIRKPATRICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00126-JAB-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States

Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Angela Hewlett Miller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4194 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/01/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Barry Kirkpatrick pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, to robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1951 (2000) (“Hobbs Act”), and was sentenced to 174 months

imprisonment. Kirkpatrick timely appealed. His attorney has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Although

informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief,

Kirkpatrick has not done so.

This court reviews the sentence imposed by the district

court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When

sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly

calculate the guideline range; (2) treat the guidelines as

advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2008); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting

a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. While the district court

must consider the various § 3553(a) factors and explain its

sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553 or discuss every

factor on the record. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345

(4th Cir. 2006). Further, this court considers that “[a] sentence

within the proper Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively

Appeal: 08-4194 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/01/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

reasonable.” United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.

2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69

(2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of

correctness of within-guideline sentence).

Here, the district court followed the appropriate

procedures in sentencing Kirkpatrick, and we find no abuse of

discretion in its sentence of 174 months of imprisonment. We

therefore find that Kirkpatrick’s sentence is reasonable. In

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Appeal: 08-4194 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/01/2008 Pg: 3 of 3