US v. Bryan Egress, No. 13-4050 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRYAN KEITH EGRESS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-4051 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRYAN KEITH EGRESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00027-IMK-JSK-1; 1:12-cr-00099-IMK-1) Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 31, 2013 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Bryan sentence he Keith received Egress after appeals he pled the guilty forty-one-month to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006), and to failing to register as offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2006). a sex Egress counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he could identify no meritorious issues for appeal, district court adequately factors and whether reasonable. but considered Egress questioning the whether statutory sentence is the sentencing substantively We affirm. As counsel properly recognizes, the district court is not required to talismanically invoke every single factor noted in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) as long as it provides some indication that it considered the factors and evaluated any nonfrivolous arguments raised by the defendant at sentencing. United States 2006). calculated v. Montes-Pineda, Moreover, a Guidelines 445 sentence range F.3d falling is 375, 380 within presumptively a (4th Cir. properly substantively reasonable, and counsel s brief identifies nothing that would suffice to disturb that presumption. F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). United States v. Susi, 674 Having reviewed the record, we can only conclude that the district court discharged its duty to 3 consider the pertinent sentencing factors and imposed a sentence that was substantively reasonable. Egress has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he claims that his guilty plea is invalid because he was incompetent to enter it, and that his sentence is infirm because the district court health records. did not adequately delve into his mental We have reviewed each of Egress assertions and conclude that they are without merit. See United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733, 742-43 (4th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [T]he rigorous plain-error standard applies to unpreserved claims of procedural sentencing error. ). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Egress, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Egress 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 Egress. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 4 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
