US v. Phelps
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN LEE PHELPS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cr-00607-GRA) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew R. MacKenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Steven L. Phelps pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). court sentenced Phelps to 262 months in prison. The district
Counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of whether Phelps' sentence was reasonable. Although Phelps was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he has not filed one. After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court no longer is bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United However, in
determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range, as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). properly calculated Id. If the sentence imposed is within the range, it is presumptively
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 2 -
Phelps' sentence was within the guideline range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment, as well as the statutory maximum of life in prison. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924. Because the district court
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant § 3353(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Phelps' convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his 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 this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because
was served on the client.
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?