NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1171n.06
No. 11-4393
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.
ARSUNTAE K. AB AYOMI , Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHE RN DI STRI CT OF OHI O

Be fore : MERRI TT, MARTI N, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM

. Ar s u n t ae K. Abay omi pleade d g uilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firea

rm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1)

. On November 23, 201 1 , t h e d i s trict court
sentenc ed Aba

y omi to forty -six months of imprisonment and three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. I n acc ordanc e with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Abay omi’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief indicating that there are no colora ble issues to appea l. Counsel has identified sever al potential points for appea l by discussing whether Abay omi’s plea was valid and whether his sentenc e was reasona ble. Abay omi did not file a timely response to counsel’s moti on. Moreove r, an independe nt examination of the proce eding s shows that his attorney made an adequate revie w of the r ecor d and that ther e is no issue that would support a viable direc t appea l. See id. Abay omi signe d a plea ag ree ment wher ein he ag ree d to waive his rig ht to an ap p ea l

. The district court confirme d Abay omi’s understanding of the plea ag ree ment, including the waiver of his appellate rig hts. Moreove r, the sentenc e that he rec eived did not exceed th e applicable sentenc ing
g uidelines rang e or the statutory maxi mum for his conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 4 (a )( 2 ). Thus,No. 11-4393 - 2 - Abay omi ha s waived his r ight to a ppeal. See United States v. Robinson , 455 F.3d 602, 610 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. McG i l ve r y , 4 0 3 F. 3d 361, 362–63 (6th Cir. 2005). There are no appar ent
g rounds for c halleng ing A bay omi’s conviction or sentenc e on dire ct appe al.
Be fore it acc epted Abay omi’s g uilty plea, the district court established that he understood his rig hts, the nature of the char g es, and the conseque nces of pleading g uilty

. Abay omi indicated that the decision t o p l ea d gu i lty was volunt ary , and he acknow ledg ed a sufficie nt fac tual basis for his plea. Abay omi was repr es en t ed b y counsel and counsel has not made any attempt to withdraw his plea. Under these c ircumstance s, Abay omi’s guilty plea a nd conviction ar e valid.
We revie w the district court’s sentenc ing decisions for rea sonablene ss. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). Thus, we “first ensure that the district court commi t t ed n o s i gn ificant
proce dural err or, such as failing to calc ulate (or improperly calc ulating) the Guidelines rang e, trea ting the Guidelines as mandatory , failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) fac tors, selec ting a sentenc e b ased on clea

rly err oneous fac ts, or failing to adequa tely explain the chosen sentenc e.” Id. at 51

. “Assuming that the distri ct court’s sentenc ing decision is proce durally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e imp o s ed under an abuse- of-discr etion standard.” Id. A s en t en ce is cre dited with a rebuttable presumption of

rea sonablene ss if it falls within the applicable sentenc ing g uidelines rang e. United States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc). Abay omi’s presente nce r eport indica ted that he had an advisory sentenc ing guide lines rang e of thirty -seve n to forty -six months of imprisonment. Abay omi did not object to the repor t. There fore , he has forf

eited any objections that he might have in the absenc e of plain err or that aff ects his substantial rig hts. See id. at 385–86. Fur ther, ther e is no plain err or in this case. The forty -six -month sent en ce t h at Abay omi rec eived car ries a rebuttable presumption of

rea sonablene ss beca

use it fell within the applicable sentenc ing g uidelines rang e. See id. at 389–90. The distr i ct court also considere d the other sentenc ing fac tors that are listed in section 3553(a) ,No. 11-4393 - 3 - including the hi s t o ry an d char acte ristics of the defe ndant, the circ umstances of the offe nse, and the need for reha

bilitative trea tment. Thus, Abay omi does not have a viable sentenc ing issue to raise on direc t appea l. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted a nd the district court’s judg ment is affirme d.