UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANDREW JULIAN ATKINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00063-NCT-2)

Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: March 27, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with a written plea agreement, Andrew 

Julian Atkinson pled guilty to attempted armed bank robbery, 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2006), and carrying and using, by brandishing, 

a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). He received an aggregate 

sentence of sixty months in prison. Atkinson now appeals. His 

attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Atkinson was notified of his 

right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed such a brief. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

Our review of the transcript of Atkinson’s Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 hearing discloses that the district court 

substantially complied with the Rule. Further, the transcript 

establishes that Atkinson entered his plea knowingly and 

voluntarily and that there was a factual basis for the plea. We 

therefore affirm the convictions.

Further, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, the sentence is 

procedurally reasonable. In this regard, the court correctly 

calculated Atkinson’s Guidelines range, considered the relevant 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained 
3

the sentence, which encompassed both a downward departure and 

the court’s grant of the Government’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) 

motion based on Atkinson’s substantial assistance. Second, our 

review of the sentencing transcript establishes that, based on 

the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is free of 

substantive error. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Atkinson’s convictions and 

sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Atkinson, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Atkinson 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 of the motion was served on Atkinson. 

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