US v. Thompson

Filing 920070710


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LESLIE LEROY THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. (3:05-cr-00021-WCB) Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leslie Leroy Thompson appeals his conviction and 188 month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of employing a person under 18 years of age in a drug operation, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 861(a)(1) and (b) (2000), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). Thompson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 286 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the district court erred in sentencing Thompson. Thompson was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but elected not to do so. This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). After Booker, a district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. However, in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts still must calculate the applicable Guidelines range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it "is within the - 2 - statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). within the proper advisory Guidelines range is Id. at 433 "[A] sentence presumptively reasonable." United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006). Here, advisory, Sentencing arguments. and the district court treated only the Guidelines as the sentenced Thompson after considering and Guidelines, Thompson's the 3553(a) factors, is counsel's 188-month sentence presumptively reasonable, as it is within the appropriate guideline range, and below the forty year statutory maximum sentence. 861(a)(1) and (b). See 21 U.S.C. As neither Thompson nor the record suggests any information to rebut the presumption, we find that Thompson's sentence is reasonable. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm the district court's judgment. We therefore 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion We must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -

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?