US v. Kyle Gro, No. 11-4605 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4605 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KYLE DAVID GROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00041-HFF-1) Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kyle David Gross pled guilty to possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B) (2006), and was sentenced attorney has to filed California, 386 meritorious grounds 96 a U.S. months brief 738 for of in accordance (1967), appeal, sentence imposed was reasonable. imprisonment. stating but with that Gross s Anders there questioning are whether v. no the Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Gross has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review a sentence reasonableness under This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. First, this properly U.S.C. court calculated § 3553(a) presented by the 572, 576 substantive totality of must the assess (4th Guidelines (2006) and the range, factors, parties, Cir. reasonableness the whether Id. district considered analyzed any sufficiently court the 18 arguments explained the Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 selected sentence. F.3d an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for 2010). of circumstances the to We also sentence, see must consider the examin[ing] the whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). 2 United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In this case, the district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from counsel and allocution from Gross. relevant § 3553(a) factors and The court considered the explained that the 96-month sentence was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense. We conclude that Gross s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Gross s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Gross, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gross requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gross. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
