UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KENNY LASALLE TAYLOR,

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. (1:09-cr-00037-NCT-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 14, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Michael 

Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenny Lasalle Taylor appeals the 190-month sentence 

imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2113(d) (2006), and to discharging a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2006). Counsel for Taylor filed a brief in 

this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal, but questioning whether the district court imposed an 

unduly harsh sentence. Taylor did not file a pro se 

supplemental brief, although he was informed of his right to do 

so.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate consideration of 

both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence. Id. 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. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 

(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany 

every sentence.” (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter, 
3

564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this 

court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly 

determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively 

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

2007).

We conclude that Taylor’s sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

properly calculated Taylor’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 

473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its 

sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the 

case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Taylor has not 

rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is 

reasonable. Thus, 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 deny counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and 

affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires 

that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Taylor requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 
4

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 

Taylor. 

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