US v. Zachary Sanders
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ZACHARY WILLIAM SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-253-D-1)
December 16, 2008
December 19, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Long, POYNER & SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Zachary William Sanders pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006); one count of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006); and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2006). After application of a career
offender enhancement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 4B1.1 (2007); an additional two-level enhancement because the firearm was stolen, USSG § 2K1.1(b)(4)(A); and a three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3B1.1(b), the district court sentenced Sanders to 276 months' imprisonment. Sanders' counsel 386 has U.S. filed 738 for as a a brief pursuant that to Anders are v. no
California, meritorious sentencing
(1967), appeal, career
Amendment rights, and whether Sanders' sentence was reasonable. Sanders was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but has failed to do so. Sanders We affirm. does not dispute that he satisfies the
requirements for career offender status, and his claim that such classification violates his constitutional rights fails. As we
previously have held, the application of the career offender 2
enhancement is properly predicated upon prior convictions found by a sentencing judge where, as here, the relevant facts
supporting the enhancement are undisputed, making it unnecessary for the court to resolve disputed issues of material fact. See
United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir. 2005). We review the sentence imposed upon Sanders by the district court for reasonableness, applying an abuse of
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
597-98 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing procedure district court must follow in sentencing). unreasonable, Although Sanders contends that his sentence is record reflects that the district court
properly determined the advisory and statutory guideline range, considered U.S.C.A. the relevant (West sentencing 2000 & factors set forth and in 18
sentenced As the and we
Sanders within a correctly calculated guideline range. district statutory court complied fully in with the
conclude that the sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sanders' conviction and sentence. 3
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. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be 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 We dispense with oral
a copy thereof was served on the client.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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?