UNPUBLISHED

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 

District 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 CURIAM:

Lysandore Moye pleaded 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 firearm 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 calculate 

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 review of a district court’s imposition 

of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 41. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines 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 court 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 

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the 

applicable Guidelines 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 

presumed 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 issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires 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 facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED