United States v. Tyler , 177 F. App'x 351 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-5073
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SHANON ARELL TYLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CR-04-387-NCT)
    Submitted: April 27, 2006                       Decided: May 1, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellant.    Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Shanon Arell Tyler pled guilty to dealing in firearms
    without a license and making a false statement to a federally
    licensed firearms dealer, in violation 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (a)(1)(A),
    (a)(6)     (2000),     and     was   sentenced     to      twenty-seven      months
    imprisonment.        Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting that there are no
    meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
    the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable.
    Although    Tyler    was     informed   of   his   right    to   file    a   pro   se
    supplemental brief, he has not done so.
    After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
    Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound
    by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines.                   See United
    States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546 (4th Cir. 2005).                    However, in
    determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still
    required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range
    as well as the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2000).
    
    Id.
       If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated
    guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable.                 United States v.
    Green, 
    436 F.3d 449
    , 
    2006 WL 267217
    , at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2006)
    (No. 05-4270).
    Tyler’s sentence was both within the guideline range of
    twenty-four to thirty months, and well within the statutory maximum
    - 2 -
    of ten years.   See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2) (2000).      Because the
    district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,
    and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the
    relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.   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 presented in
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-5073

Citation Numbers: 177 F. App'x 351

Filed Date: 5/1/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021