Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Edward JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 422 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 10-4722
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vincent Edward JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vincent Edward JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-4722.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.
Decided: April 11, 2011.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Vincent Edward Jones pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000) and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and 500 grams or more of cocaine in of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). During the pendency of Jones' sentencing hearing, he and the Government reached an as to sentencing. The district court imposed the agreed upon 210-month at the conclusion of Jones' hearing. Jones then filed this timely appeal.
Jones' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of his sentence Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court's sentence for reasonableness under an standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review requires appellate of both the procedural and reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. In determining procedural reasonableness, this court considers whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, any arguments presented by the and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. Finally, this court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the "examin[ing] the totality of the to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a)." United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir.2010).
Here, the district court followed the procedural steps in sentencing Jones, properly calculating the Guidelines sentence, considering the § 3553(a) and sentencing Jones to a negotiated sentence of 210 months-some 150 months below the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range. Hence, we determine that the sentence imposed by the district court was both proeedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. This court requires that inform Jones in writing of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 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 Jones.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.