UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GRANT MASCHIL HINES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00373-CCE-1)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Grant Maschil 

Hines pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). 

The district court sentenced Hines to fifty months’ 

imprisonment, which was in the middle of his advisory Guidelines 

range. Counsel for Hines has filed this appeal pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although advised of his 

right to do so, Hines has declined to file a pro se supplemental 

brief. The Government has not filed a response brief. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

We have reviewed the transcript of Hines’ Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 hearing and conclude that Hines’ guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in 

fact. We thus affirm Hines’ conviction. 

We next consider the reasonableness of Hines’ 

sentence. When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50 

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 
3

outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 41. 

The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Hines, appropriately treating the Sentencing 

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the 

applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors. The court provided sufficient reasoning for 

the sentence. Furthermore, the within-Guidelines sentence is 

presumptively substantively reasonable. See United States v. 

Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2010). Neither counsel 

nor Hines offer any ground upon which to question the 

substantive reasonableness of Hines’ sentence, and we discern 

none. We thus conclude that 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. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Hines, in writing, of 

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

further review. If Hines 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 Hines. We dispense with oral argument because the 
4

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED