US v. Fossett, No. 07-4415 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4415 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VICTOR FOSSETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00010-RDB) Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen Matthew Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor Fossett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (f) (2000). Fossett was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment, which was the low end of the advisory guidelines range. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Fossett was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find that the district court properly applied the sentencing factors guidelines before and imposing considered the the 151-month § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). relevant sentence. sentencing 18 U.S.C.A. Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness accorded within-guidelines sentence). Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Fossett s conviction and sentence. withdraw. We therefore affirm We deny counsel s motion to This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If Fossett requests that such a petition be filed, but - 2 - counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Fossett. 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.
