Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tahara Nicole GAINEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 109
Docket Number: No. 11-5015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tahara Nicole GAINEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tahara Nicole GAINEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-5015.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2012.
Decided: April 2, 2012.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tahara Nicole Gainey pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distributing 53.2 grams of cocaine base "crack" and was sentenced to 216 months' imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether Gainey's sentence was unreasonable because the district court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first review a sentence for significant procedural error and then evaluate the sentence for substantive error. Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.2009). We find no abuse of discretion in Gainey's sentence, which was imposed within a properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007) ("A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.") (citation omitted); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this ease and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Gainey's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Gainey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gainey 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 Gainey.
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.