UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4716

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CHARLES SHORON GROSS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:05-cr-00441-PJM-1) 

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 15, 2009 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John M. McKenna, BRENNAN, SULLIVAN & MCKENNA, LLP, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Chan Park, Assistant United States 

Attorney Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Charles Shoron Gross pleaded guilty, pursuant to a 

plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and 

possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 

846 (2006). The district court sentenced him to 188 months of 

imprisonment, and Gross timely appealed. 

 On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief, in which he 

states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions 

whether the sentence was reasonable. Gross was advised of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a 

brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. 

 We review a sentence imposed by the district court for 

procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007). The court considers the totality of the circumstances 

in assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.

This court presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly 

calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 

517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of 

reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). In considering 

 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

2 
the district court’s application of the Guidelines, this court 

reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions 

de novo. United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 

2006). 

 The district court correctly calculated Gross’ 

Guidelines2 range. The court then granted the Government’s 

motion for a departure, and further varied downward. The 188-

month sentence is thirty-two months below the Guidelines range 

after the court granted the Government’s departure motion, and 

is within the applicable statutory maximum. Our review of the 

record leads us to conclude that Gross’ 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 Gross’ conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Gross, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Gross 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 Gross. 

 2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2007). 

3 
4 

 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