UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARIUS TREMAYNE BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00071-WO-1)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Darius Tremayne Brooks pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Brooks was 

sentenced by the district court to ninety-six months’ 

imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the 

reasonableness of Brooks’ sentence. Brooks filed a pro se 

supplemental brief, contending that the sentencing enhancements 

for armed robbery and kidnapping are erroneous because he 

believes he will be acquitted of the offenses when he goes to 

trial in state court. Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellate review of a sentence, “whether inside, just 

outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 

(2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at 

51. This court must assess whether the district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments 

presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also United States v. 

Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized 
3

explanation must accompany every sentence.”); United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We may presume a 

sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range 

is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,

217 (4th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record with these standards in 

mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Brooks’ 

sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Therefore, 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 

chosen sentence.

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 judgment of the district court. 

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 this court for leave to 

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED