US v. Suggs
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANIEL LEE SUGGS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00474-RBH)
October 29, 2007
November 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Aileen Clare, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Daniel Lee Suggs appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to two counts of use and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). imprisonment. On Suggs was sentenced to thirty-two years of appeal, Suggs' attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising as potential issues whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, whether the Government breached the plea agreement by not moving for downward departure, and whether Suggs' sentence was reasonable. Although advised of his right to do so, Suggs has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Counsel first raises the issue of whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the Rule 11 proceeding. After a thorough review of the record, we find
the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Counsel next asserts that Suggs provided substantial assistance to the Government and thus the Government was required to move for a downward departure. The Government was not obligated under its plea agreement to file such a motion, see United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2000), and there is no indication that it refused to make the motion based on an
- 2 -
unconstitutional motive such as race or religion. States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992). polygraph test, thereby failing "to
Wade v. United
Rather, Suggs failed a be fully truthful and
forthright" as required under the terms of the plea agreement. Thus, Suggs failed to fully cooperate under the provisions of the plea agreement as required for the Government to consider filing a motion for downward departure. We therefore find the Government
did not breach the plea agreement. Suggs next questions whether his sentence was reasonable. This court will affirm a sentence if it "is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable." United States v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). "[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence). We find the
district court's imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences on each count, which were statutorily required to be served consecutively, after considering and examining the
sentencing guidelines and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
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
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
- 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?