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

**No. 10**  **- 4197** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ROBERT MOORE SAMPSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wester n District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00085

- MR

- 3 )

Submitted : March 29, 2011 Decided: April 22, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinio n .
S. Frederick Winiker, III, WINIKER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Moore Sampson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was sentenced to sixty

- five months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issue s for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Sampson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, emphasizing the mitigating fa ctors supporting a l esser sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. This c ourt reviews a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas , 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. In determining the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the district cou rt properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. “Regardless of whether the distric t court imposes an above, below, or within

- Guidelines sentence, it must place on the3 record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter , 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation m arks omitted). If the sentence is procedurally sound, t his c ourt next assesses the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “taking into account the ‘totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” Unit ed States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) ( quoting Gall , 552 U.S. at 51). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed Sampson’s sentence and conclude that the district court properly calculated Sampson’s sentencing range under the advis ory Guidelines as 87

- 108 months . T he district court also allowed counsel to argue that the § 3553(a) factors warranted a sentence of time served and afforded Sampson an opportunity to allocute.
See United States v. Lynn , 592 F.3d 572, 5 81 (4th Cir. 2010)
. The district court articulately explained before imposing
sentence that other factors , particularly the need to deter others, outweighed Sampson’s favorable offender characteristics.
See Carter , 564 F.3d at 330
. Finally, Sampson offers no persuasive a rgument that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a below

- Guidelines sentence of sixty

- five months
. See Pauley , 511 F.3d at 474 (affirming sentence where downward variance was “reasonable and premis ed on4 the factors set forth in § 3553(a)”). Accordingly, we discern neither procedural nor substantive sentencing error. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgm ent. This court requires that counsel inform Sampson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sampson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolo us, 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 Sampson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED