UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Lauren PFOFF, Defendant-Appellant, 330 F. App'x 443

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Lauren Pfoff appeals from his robbery and firearm convictions and his 300-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea. Pfoffs counsel has filed an Anders brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Pfoff and the Government have declined to file briefs. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. After signing a detailed plea agreement, Pfoff pled guilty following a thorough Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 colloquy.

He testified that he was fully satisfied with his attorney and that he was pleading guilty voluntarily. Subsequently, the district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Pfoff, appropriately treating the Guidelines as advisory, referencing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and providing an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Pfoffs sentence was the sentence the parties agreed to as appropriate in the plea agreement; moreover, as it was within the Guidelines range, we may presume that it was reasonable. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.2007). Our review of the record showed no meritorious issues for review. Accordingly, we affirm Pfoffs convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).