US v. Christopher Thomas
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-01251-JFA-1)
July 7, 2009
July 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beattie B. Ashmore, PRICE ASHMORE & BEASLEY P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Thomas pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, marijuana, and ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2009). The district court His attorney
sentenced Thomas to 117 months of imprisonment.
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal.
Thomas was informed of his right We
to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. affirm. In district the Anders in brief, counsel questions to whether months
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying Gall v. United States, 552 597 (2007); see also United In so
an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586,
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
doing, we first examine the sentence for "significant procedural error," including: "failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider a the [18 U.S.C.] based § 3553(a) clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 2
sentence . . . ." consider[s] imposed." taking into the the Id.
Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. substantive reasonableness
This court "then of the review sentence entails
"Substantive the of
reasonableness of the
`totality any variance
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. If the sentence is a presumption of
2007) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). within the guidelines range, we apply
reasonableness. S. Ct. 2456,
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence). We district have reviewed the no record and conclude that error the in
within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, This of We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court requires to that counsel the inform Thomas, of in the
United States for further review.
If Thomas 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. 3 Counsel's motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Thomas.
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. 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?