Opinion
No. 06-5213.
Submitted: August 24, 2007.
Decided: September 14, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00137).
Keith M. Stroud, Sr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dimarco Antonio Alexander pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base and using or carrying a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 120 months on the possession charge and sixty months consecutive for the firearm offense. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that the sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for review. Alexander was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief; however, he did not file such a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Alexander's sentence, imposed within the properly calculated advisory guideline range and applicable statutory limits, is reasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy of the motion 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.