United States v. Daniel Hunsberger , 466 F. App'x 253 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL ROBERT HUNSBERGER,
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. (1:10-cr-00297-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton Bays Shoaf, ADDISON & SHOAF, Salisbury, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Robert Hunsberger pled guilty to one count of
possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2011), and was sentenced within the
advisory Guidelines range to a term of ninety-seven months’
incarceration. Hunsberger appealed, and counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that in his view there are no meritorious issues for
appeal and alleging no error by the district court, but
questioning whether, by operation of enhancements contained in
USSG § 2G2.2, Hunsberger’s sentence was unduly severe under the
circumstances. Hunsberger was advised of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that Hunsberger’s claim is without merit, and that his sentence
is not procedurally unreasonable. See United States v. Morace,
594 F.3d 340, 346-51 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 307(2010). Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment. 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
2
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 the client.
Finally, 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
3