US v. Larry Brooks, No. 08-4457 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY ALLEN BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:07-cr-01223-PMD-1) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Allen Brooks pled firearm by a convicted felon. months in prison. guilty to possession of a Brooks was sentenced to fifty-one He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious claims for appeal. Brooks was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. We affirm. In the Anders brief, counsel first questions whether the district court complied concludes that it did. with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 but Our review of the transcript discloses full compliance with the Rule. Further, the transcript reveals that Brooks entered his guilty plea intelligently, voluntarily and knowingly, with a full understanding of the consequences of his plea. Brooks Guidelines range as initially calculated was fifty-one to sixty-three months. fifty-one month reasonableness sentence of a (2007). consideration reasonable. criminal sentence Reasonableness of both under review an calculated review requires procedural the reasonableness of a sentence. correctly We abuse the of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, discretion standard. 594-97 was Counsel questions whether the and Id. Brooks substantive Here, the district court advisory 2 appellate Guidelines range, considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. adequately ยง 3553(a) explained its (West reason 2000 for & Supp. imposing 2008), and sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). addition, Brooks Guidelines sentence, range, was at the low presumptively end of the In advisory reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements meritorious issues for appeal. of Anders, and we find Accordingly, we affirm. no This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
