UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVY CHRISTOPHER WYATT, 

 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. (1:07-cr-00322-NCT-1) 

Submitted: June 12, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett 

Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Davy Christopher Wyatt pled guilty pursuant to a 

written plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court 

sentenced Wyatt as a career offender to 262 months’ 

imprisonment. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are 

no meritorious issues for appeal but states that Wyatt’s 

sentence is unreasonable because it is unduly harsh. Wyatt was 

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

he did not do so. Finding no error, we affirm. 

 When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 

S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s 

imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or 

significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of 

discretion. Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable 

Guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be 

reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th 

Cir. 2007). 

 The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Wyatt, appropriately treating the Guidelines 

2 
as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable 

Guidelines range, and discussing the applicable § 3553(a) 

factors. Furthermore, Wyatt’s sentence, which is the low end of 

the advisory Guidelines range and well below the applicable 

statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & 

Supp. 2009) (prescribing maximum of life imprisonment for 

offenses involving five grams or more of cocaine base and a 

prior felony drug conviction), may be presumed reasonable by 

this court. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court 

requires that 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, then counsel may move this court for leave to 

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

 

3 
4 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED