US v. Alonzo Johnson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [998208202-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998143711-2] Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00061-FDW-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998422046] [09-4053]

Download PDF
US v. Alonzo Johnson Doc. 0 Case: 09-4053 Document: 87 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4053 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALONZO LEE JOHNSON, a/k/a Lil Zo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-6) Submitted: August 30, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 09-4053 Document: 87 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Alonzo Lee Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation The of 21 U.S.C. court 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), within 846 the (2006). district sentenced Johnson advisory Guidelines range to 160 months' imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the voluntariness of Johnson's plea and whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Johnson filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the same issues and arguing that he is entitled disparities to a sentence reduction powder based and on the sentencing base. involving cocaine cocaine Finding no error, we affirm. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensured that Johnson's plea was knowing and voluntary. We also conclude that the district court imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We have considered the claims asserted in Johnson's pro 2 Case: 09-4053 Document: 87 Date Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 3 se supplemental brief and conclude they are without merit. therefore affirm the district court's judgment. We We also deny Johnson's motion for substitution of counsel and to place this appeal in abeyance. This court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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 Johnson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. AFFIRMED 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?