UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4869

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTWAN LEE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:08-cr-00040-01; 7:09-cr-00007-sgw-2)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Allegra M.C. Black, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, 

Research and Writing Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC 

DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennie L.M. 

Waering, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Antwan Lee pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e) (2006), and 

malicious damage to a building by fire, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 844(i) (2006). He received a 168-month sentence. 

Lee’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in counsel’s

opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising 

the issues of whether Lee’s waiver of appeal rights was 

effective and whether Lee’s sentence is reasonable. Lee was 

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but 

has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Counsel first challenges the enforceability of Lee’s

appellate waiver. However, the Government has not filed a 

responsive brief or motion to dismiss asserting the waiver, and 

we do not sua sponte enforce appellate waivers. See United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 

United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000)). 

Accordingly, we conclude this issue is moot.

We review a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this 

review requires us to ensure that the district court committed 

no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 
3

the guideline range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 

(4th Cir. 2009). We then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Lee was found to be an armed career criminal and, 

accordingly, he was subject to a statutorily mandated minimum of 

180 months’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). His advisory 

guidelines range was 180 to 210 months’ imprisonment. See U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5G1.1(c)(2) (2008) 

(requiring the statutorily required minimum sentence be the 

minimum of the advisory guideline sentence). The Government, 

however, filed a motion pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 based on Lee’s 

substantial assistance, recommending a sentence of fourteen 

years’ imprisonment, a sentence below the advisory guidelines 

range and below the statutory minimum. After considering the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, the district court sentenced 

Lee to fourteen years’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the 

record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in sentencing Lee and that his sentence is 

reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Lee, in writing, of his 
4

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Lee 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 Lee. 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