UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

AUBORN FRANK SMITH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(8:07-cr-00400-HFF-1) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Auborn Frank Smith appeals from his conviction and 

180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Smith’s attorney 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), addressing the validity of the plea and the 

reasonableness of the sentence, but stating that there was no 

merit to the appeal. Smith was advised of his right to file a 

pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Our review of 

the record discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm 

Smith’s conviction and sentence. 

 We find that Smith’s guilty plea was knowingly and 

voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11. Smith was properly advised of his rights, the 

offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and the maximum 

sentence for the offense. The court also determined that there 

was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the plea 

was not coerced or influenced by any promises. See United 

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

 Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district 

courts 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: 

2 
(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. We 

presume that a sentence within the properly calculated 

sentencing guidelines range is 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 imposed a variance sentence 

of 180 months, which was below the advisory guideline range. 

Because the district court adequately explained the bases for 

the variance and because the amount of the variance was 

reasonable, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence of 

180 months of imprisonment. 

 As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 

therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform her 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 

3 
4 

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