US v. Thang Cao
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THANG CAO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00055-RJC-20)
May 28, 2009
June 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Trevor M. Fuller, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Thang Cao pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methylenedioxymethamphetamine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2006). He was sentenced to eighty-seven
Cao's counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the sentence was reasonable. a pro se supplemental brief. file a reply brief.
Cao has filed
The Government has declined to
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review sentences imposed by the district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We must
first ensure that the district court committed no procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guidelines range,
considering the guidelines to be mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. In the absence of
procedural errors, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances, including any variance from the guidelines range. 2
Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473.
While we may presume a sentence within
the guidelines range to be reasonable, we may not presume a sentence outside the range to be unreasonable. we give deference to the district court's Id. Moreover, that the
§ 3553(a) factors justify a variant sentence and to the extent of that variance. Even if the reviewing court would have
imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is not sufficient to justify reversing the district court. In imposing Cao's sentence, Id. at 473-74. the district court
correctly calculated the guidelines range and considered both the advisory nature of the guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors. The court provided adequate reasons for its decision to grant a downward departure we and to deny any further sentence variance. is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. In reiterates his pro se he supplemental presented brief, at Cao merely for a
downward departure. the entire record
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed for any meritorious issues and have found
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Cao, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cao requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 3
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
was served on Cao. facts and legal before
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?