**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4988** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LYSANDORE MOYE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Distr ict of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00366

- JAB

- 2 )

Submitted : April 28 , 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Johnathan Leonard, LEONARD LAW FIRM, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER C URIAM: Lysandore Moye ple a d ed guilty to theft of firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u), 924(m) (2006), and two counts of felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) ( 2006). Counsel for Moye filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court fashioned a reasonable sentence in light of the fir earm enhancements for both the number of firearms involved and for trafficking of the firearms. *

A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court must calc ulate the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49

- 50 (2007). Appellate revie w of a district court’s imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the G uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41. S entences within the applicable G uidelines range may be The Government elected not to file a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

* Moye did not object to the sentencing enhancements.3 presumed by the appellate cour t to be reasonable. United
States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Moye, appropriately treating the Sentencing
G uidelines as advisory, properly calculating and conside ring the applicable G uidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual , §§ 2k2.1(b)(1)(C), (b)(5), cmt. n.13(D) (2009). Moye’s sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range and may be
presum ed reasonable by this court. Pauley , 511 F.3d at 473. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious is sues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

re quires that counsel inform Moye , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Moye 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 Moye
. We dispense with oral argument because the f acts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials4 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED