The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4799
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NIGUAL O’KEITH BROWN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00344-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Beechler, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER A. BEECHLER,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Nigual O’Keith Brown,
Jr., pled guilty to two counts of interference with commerce by
robbery. The district court sentenced him to 175 months’
imprisonment. Brown’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the sentence was enhanced based on
uncorroborated statements, and whether Brown was properly
sentenced as a career offender. Although advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, Brown has not done so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Brown contends that his sentence was improperly
enhanced based on a statement given to officials by his co-
defendant. However, in ruling on Brown’s objection, the
district court expressly stated that the other charged offenses
would not be considered in imposing Brown’s sentence. We find
nothing in the record to refute this statement.
Brown also challenges the determination that he
qualified for the career offender enhancement at sentencing. We
conclude that the district court correctly found that Brown had
two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, and
therefore properly applied this enhancement. U.S. Sentencing
2
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2012); see United States v. Bowden,
975 F.2d 1080, 1085 (4th Cir. 1992).
We have reviewed Brown’s sentence and conclude that
the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Brown, appropriately treated the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and
considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors in light of Brown’s
individual characteristics and history. We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).
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 Brown, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Brown 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 Brown. We dispense with
3
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4