UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LARRY ALLEN BROOKS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:07-cr-01223-PMD-1) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Larry Allen Brooks pled guilty to possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon. Brooks was sentenced to fifty-one 

months in prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious 

claims for appeal. Brooks was advised of his right to file a 

pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. We affirm. 

In the Anders brief, counsel first questions whether 

the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but 

concludes that it did. Our review of the transcript discloses 

full compliance with the Rule. Further, the transcript reveals 

that Brooks entered his guilty plea intelligently, voluntarily 

and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences of 

his plea. 

 Brooks’ Guidelines range as initially calculated was 

fifty-one to sixty-three months. Counsel questions whether the 

fifty-one month sentence was reasonable. We review the 

reasonableness of a criminal sentence under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 

594-97 (2007). Reasonableness review requires appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of a sentence. Id. Here, the district court 

correctly calculated Brooks’ advisory Guidelines range,

2 
3 

considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth 

at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and 

adequately explained its reason for imposing sentence. See

United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). In 

addition, Brooks’ sentence, at the low end of the advisory 

Guidelines range, was presumptively reasonable. United 

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

find no abuse of discretion. 

 We have examined the entire record in this case in 

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This 

court requires 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw 

from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of 

the motion 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