UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SAMUEL JEROME LEWIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge; William W. Wilkins, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by 

designation. (8:07-cr-00954-GRA-1) 

Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Samuel Jerome Lewis appeals his convictions and 130-

month sentence after pleading guilty to armed bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) (2006), and use of a 

firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). Counsel has filed a brief 

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

questioning whether the district court erred in sentencing Lewis 

to 130 months of imprisonment. Counsel concedes, however, that 

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although notified 

of his right to do so, Lewis has not filed a pro se supplemental 

brief. We affirm. 

We review the sentence imposed by the district court 

for reasonableness, using the abuse of discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United 

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

appellate court is required to review the sentence for 

procedural or substantive errors: 

It must first ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing 

to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including 

an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines 

range. 

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

2 
If the appellate court concludes that the sentence is 

“procedurally sound,” the court then considers the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Id. “Substantive 

reasonableness review entails taking into account the ‘totality 

of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from 

the Guidelines range.’” Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 

128 S. Ct. at 597). We presume that a sentence imposed within 

the properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United 

States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. 

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding 

presumption of reasonableness for within—Guidelines sentence). 

Based on our review of the record, we find that 

Lewis’s sentence is procedurally sound. The district court 

committed no procedural errors. The court appropriately treated 

the Guidelines as advisory and then considered the Guidelines 

range and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) before 

imposing a 130-month prison term, a sentence within the 

Guidelines range. We apply the presumption of reasonableness to 

Lewis’s within-Guidelines sentence, and find that neither Lewis 

nor the record suggests any information to rebut the 

presumption. We therefore conclude that the sentence is 

reasonable. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

3 
4 

We therefore affirm Lewis’s convictions and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Lewis, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Lewis 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 Lewis. 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