UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LATARISHA MICHELLE CRAWFORD,

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. (1:14-cr-00212-NCT-1)

Submitted: August 25, 2015 Decided: August 28, 2015

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Latarisha Michelle Crawford pleaded guilty to possession of 

an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) 

(2012). The district court sentenced Crawford to 120 months of 

imprisonment, and she now appeals. Appellate counsel has filed 

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

questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Crawford was 

informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

she has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); see also United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th 

Cir. 2015). In so doing, we first examines the sentence for any 

procedural error, including “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)] 

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, 

or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including 

an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” 

Lymas, 781 F.3d at 111-12 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; if 

the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we apply a 

presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 551 
3

U.S. 338, 346-59 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness 

for within Guidelines sentence).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that 

the sentence is reasonable. The district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, responded to the 

parties’ sentencing arguments, and adequately explained the 

chosen sentence. In addition, Crawford has failed to overcome 

the presumption of reasonableness applied to her withinGuidelines sentence.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with the 

requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires that counsel inform Crawford, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Crawford 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 Crawford. 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