United States of America v. John Joseph Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN JOSEPH DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CR-
04-283)
Submitted: March 24, 2006 Decided: April 28, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hervery B. O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*We note that although the district court expressed its
intention during the August 26, 2005 sentencing hearing to impose
a shorter sentence, that sentence was conditioned upon Davis’s
passing a drug test. When Davis failed the test, the district
court held a new sentencing hearing on September 9, 2005, at which
it imposed the forty-month sentence from which Davis appeals.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
John Joseph Davis appeals his conviction and forty-month
sentence imposed following a guilty plea to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2), and 924(e) (2000). Davis’s attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising the argument that the sentence was unreasonable, but
stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The
Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of
his right to do so, Davis did not file a pro se supplemental brief.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The
district court sentenced Davis below the statutorily prescribed
maximum of ten years’ imprisonment, and within the properly
calculated range of the sentencing guidelines, between thirty-seven
and forty-six months. * See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,
455-56 (4th Cir. 2006). We find Davis’s sentence of forty months
to be reasonable. We therefore affirm Davis’s conviction and
sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
This court requires that counsel inform the 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 in 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 of 3 --