UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY RASHON CARTER, a/k/a Larry Rashawn Carter,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-4390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY RAYSHAWN CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:94-cr-00258-WO-1; 1:09-cr-00045-WO-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

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

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greensboro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Larry Rayshawn Carter1 appeals from his convictions and 

188-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to 

distribution of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon (No. 10-4390). He also appeals from the 

district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and 

imposing a consecutive sentence of forty-eight months in prison 

(No. 10-4389). On appeal, Carter’s attorney has filed an Anders2

Carter first asserts that the sentence imposed upon 

revocation of his supervised release was substantively 

unreasonable because it was imposed to run consecutively to the 

sentence imposed for Carter’s convictions. However, Carter’s 

forty-eight-month sentence was below the undisputed advisory 

Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum. The district 

court’s decision to run the revocation sentence consecutive to 

the sentence on the underlying charges was authorized by statute 

and is preferred under the Guidelines policy statements. See 18 

brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues in either 

appeal but questioning whether Carter’s sentences were unduly 

harsh. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

 1 Carter’s middle name is alternately referred to in court 

documents as Rashan and Rashawn.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
4

U.S.C. § 3584 (2006); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4.) (2009). Carter provides no 

argument as to why his below-Guidelines sentence is 

unreasonable, and the record does not support the conclusion 

that Carter’s sentence was unnecessarily harsh when measured 

against the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010)

factors.

Similarly, Carter asserts that his 188-month sentence 

was unduly harsh. However, his sentence was at the bottom of 

his presumptively reasonable and undisputed advisory Guidelines 

range. See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th 

Cir. 2008) (describing presumption of reasonableness), cert. 

denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). Carter provides no argument 

rebutting this presumption, and our review of the record does 

not disclose a meritorious claim of sentencing error.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

in both appeals and found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s convictions, the revocation of 

his supervised release, and his sentences. We deny counsel’s 

motion to withdraw at this time. 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 
5

may renew his motion 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