
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Edward RICHARDSON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-4214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
    Decided: March 7, 2011.
    Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Richardson pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced him to 110 months’ imprisonment. Richardson’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a variance sentence. Richardson was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Richardson’s guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we affirm Richardson’s conviction.

We have reviewed Richardson’s sentence and conclude that it was properly calculated and is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Richardson, appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in relation to Richardson’s criminal conduct and his individual circumstances. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the variance sentence of 110 months. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (holding that “due deference” is given to the district court’s decision to impose variance sentence), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 165, 178 L.Ed.2d 41 (2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Richardson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Richardson 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 Richardson. 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.  