US v. Scott
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RASHAUN SCOTT, a/k/a Shaun, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00651-MBS)
March 29, 2007
April 3, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas N. Truslow, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Rashaun Scott pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000). The district court sentenced Scott to 188
months' imprisonment, at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines range. Scott appealed. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending there are no meritorious issues for appeal but requesting this Court to review the propriety of Scott's sentence. In his pro se supplemental
brief, Scott asserts the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on facts not admitted by him or proven beyond a reasonable guidelines doubt and erroneously The considered the sentencing to file a
Finding no error, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the sentencing court must calculate the appropriate advisory guideline range, making any necessary factual findings. The court then
should consider that range in conjunction with the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) sentencing factors and determine a proper sentence. (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 The sentence must be within the statutorily
Scott also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim is not cognizable on appeal because ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on the record. See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). - 2 -
prescribed range and reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). A sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). In light of these
principles, we find no error in Scott's sentencing. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Scott's conviction and sentence. We
requires that counsel inform Scott, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scott 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 Scott. 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.
- 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?