United States of America v. Albert Lamont Pharr, a/k/a Mont

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT LAMONT PHARR, a/k/a Mont,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00253-RJC-5)
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Trevor M. Fuller, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Albert Lamont Pharr appeals the 300-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006); one count
of possession with intent to distribute and to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006); one
count of possession of a firearm during and in relation to a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2006); and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Pharr’s counsel has
filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether the district court erred in imposing Pharr’s
sentence. Pharr has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness,
using the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). We conclude
that Pharr’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court properly calculated Pharr’s
Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and
considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors.
See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007);
see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable
presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence). The
court’s sentence was based on its “individualized assessment” of
the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2009).
We have reviewed Pharr’s pro se informal brief and
find no merit to his claims. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have
found none. Accordingly, we 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 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 --