Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Michael MEO, a/k/a Michael Robert Meo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 643 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 15-4339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Michael MEO, a/k/a Michael Robert Meo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Michael MEO, a/k/a Michael Robert Meo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4339.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 29, 2016.
Decided: April 1, 2016.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Michael Meo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), 2 (2012). The district sentenced him to 156 months' imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Meo's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there- are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Meo did not file a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving an extension of time to do so.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court made no significant procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Meo does not rebut our appellate presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 421, 190 L.Ed.2d 293 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Meo, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Meo 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 Meo.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.