UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4612

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PAUL MATTHEW BRIM,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-TDS-1)

Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: July 20, 2010

Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Matthew Brim appeals his sentence to 200 months 

in prison and five years of supervised release imposed after he 

pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). Brim’s 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether 

the district court erred in imposing a sentence of 200 months 

imprisonment. Brim was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

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

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this 

review requires us to ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 

the guideline range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence 

within a properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. 

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
3

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Brim, and his sentence within his advisory guideline range is 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 

properly determined he was an armed career criminal and that his 

guideline range was 180 to 210 months based on the mandatory 

minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), a total offense level of 

thirty, and a criminal history category of VI. Because Brim had 

thirty criminal history points and many of his offenses were 

violent crimes, the probation officer noted an upward departure 

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1) (2008) 

might be warranted and recommended a sentence at the high end of 

the guideline range to protect the public and serve as a measure 

of deterrence. Brim’s attorney contended a sentence within the 

guideline range would comport with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and 

requested that the district court consider Brim’s history and 

characteristics in determining an appropriate sentence.

In sentencing Brim to 200 months, the district court 

considered the guidelines on an advisory basis, the arguments of 

counsel, statements of the defendant, and the § 3553(a) factors. 

The district court noted that Brim, as a convicted felon, knew 

he could not possess a firearm; had been involved in criminal 

activity for more than twenty years; had twice the number of 

criminal history points to qualify for a category VI; and by all 
4

accounts was a habitual criminal and felon. Moreover, four of 

his prior offense were for violent felonies. The district court 

noted it had taken into account the need for the punishment to 

reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for 

the law, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public 

from his further crimes. Thus, the court properly concluded a 

200-month sentence was reasonable in this case.

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 

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