US v. Temarrius Bethea

Filing 920091106

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TEMARRIUS RONTAE BETHEA, a/k/a Teardrop, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00193-TDS-3)

Submitted:

October 16, 2009

Decided:

November 6, 2009

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Temarrius Rontae Bethea pled guilty pursuant to a

written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Bethea was sentenced to 228 months' imprisonment. Counsel filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors at sentencing. Bethea was

notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government elected not to file a

responsive brief.

Finding no error, we affirm.

When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Further, the district court "must place on the record an

individualized assessment [of the § 3553(a) factors] based on the particular facts of the case before it." United States v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Appellate review of a district

court's imposition of a sentence, "whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range," is for abuse of discretion. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591. 2

The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Bethea, appropriately treating the

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and applying the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case. Government's motion for Moreover, the court granted the departure based on Bethea's

downward

substantial assistance and sentenced Bethea below the applicable advisory Guidelines range. court did not abuse its Thus, we conclude that the district discretion in imposing the chosen

sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district This court requires that counsel inform his client, in 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 this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state We dispense with contentions the court are and

that a copy thereof was served on the client. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3