UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVID ALAN HILL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00013-NCT-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael Meinecke, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Alan Hill appeals the 162-month sentence imposed 

following a guilty plea to two counts of robbery affecting 

interstate commerce and brandishing a firearm during and in 

relation to robbery. On appeal, Hill’s counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in 

which he concludes that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal but questions the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence. Hill was informed of his right to file a supplemental 

pro se brief, but he has failed to file one. We affirm.

Hill contends that the sentencing court made improper 

inferences from the evidence regarding his susceptible 

personality when it imposed a sentence at the top of the 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. When reviewing a sentence 

for substantive reasonableness, we take into account “the 

totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). We accord a sentence within a 

properly-calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 

(4th Cir. 2008). Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing 

“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 

U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a) [(West 2000 & Supp. 2011)] factors.” United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 
3

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the 

district court properly analyzed the arguments presented by Hill 

and appropriately imposed a sentence at the top of the 

Guidelines range. The court considered the mitigating 

circumstances raised by Hill and rejected the contention that 

they supported a lower sentence. Moreover, the court noted 

that, in the absence of Hill’s cooperation, the court may have 

accepted the probation officer’s recommendation of an upward 

variance. Finally, Hill received the sentence which he 

requested. Taking into account the totality of the 

circumstances and the court’s explicit consideration of Hill’s 

arguments, we can find no abuse of discretion, and so, we 

conclude that Hill’s sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we reviewed the entire 

record in this case and found no meritorious claims. Therefore, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires 

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the 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 
4

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED