**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4**  **961**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

─ Appell ee ,

v. JOHN SINGLETON , Defendant

─ Appell ant . Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of So u th Carolina , at Charleston

. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2 :0 9

- cr - 00 91 4

- PMD

- 2 )

Submitted : June 16 , 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by unpubl ished per curiam opinion

.
Walter S. Ameika, Jr., AMEIKA LAW OFFICES, Summerville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric John Klumb , Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston , South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Singleton pled guilty to conspiracy to embezzle money from a federally

- funded organization . The district court sentenced h im to 24 months' imprisonment . Singleton’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’ s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Singleton’s sentence was reasonable in light of his request for a variance or a downward departure. Singleton was adv ised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm. In fulfilling our duty under Anders , we have reviewed the guilty plea for any error, and find none. Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conc lude that the district court fully comp lied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Singleton ’s guilty plea. The court ensured that Singleton understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and volun tarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119

- 20 (4th Cir. 1991) . Accordingly, we affirm Singleton ’s conviction. We have reviewed Singleton ’s sentence and determined that i t was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed3 was reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas , 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedu ral steps in sentencin g Singleton , approp riately treated the sentencing G uidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable G uidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of Singleton's individual characteristics and circumstances

. The district court adequately explained its reasons for denying a variance, noting that Singleton had the benefit of education and a masters degree, he was a role model in the community helping the unfort unate, and yet, while employed with an agency entrusted to aid the poor of the community, Singleton used his position to steal the money designated for the needy. Because the court adequately explained its reasons for imposing sentence at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, w e conclu de that the sentence is not an a buse of discretion. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within
G uidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requ ires that counsel inform Singleton , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the4 United States for further review. If Singleton reque sts 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 Singleton

. 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.

AFFIRME D