UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4509

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RODERICK WARNER WHELESS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. 

Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00230-WO-1) 

Submitted: November 13, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Roderick Warner Wheless appeals the 272-month sentence 

imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to armed bank 

robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a 

crime of violence. Wheless’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in 

his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but 

raising the issue of whether Wheless’s sentence on the robbery 

count is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to 

accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Wheless was 

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he 

has not done so. We affirm. 

 We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The first step in this 

review requires us to ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 

F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). 

Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329 

(4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). We then 

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking 

into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. 

Ct. at 597. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume a 

sentence within the properly-calculated Guideline range is 

2 
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 

2007). 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Wheless, and his sentence, which is at the low end of the 

Guideline range, is reasonable. On appeal, Wheless’s attorney 

argues that the district court did not attach enough weight to 

the history and characteristics of the defendant, resulting in a 

sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, he acknowledges that the district 

court sentenced Wheless as counsel requested, at the bottom of 

his advisory Guideline range. We find that the district court 

considered the parties’ arguments and relevant § 3553(a) 

factors, including Wheless’s history and characteristics, and 

the court reasonably imposed a sentence at the low end of the 

advisory range. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

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 his client in writing of 

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If the client 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 

3 
4 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. 

 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