US v. Terry Truesdale
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY THOMPKINS TRUESDALE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00190-JAB-1)
November 17, 2009
November 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Terry Thompkins Truesdale appeals from his convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and his resulting 188-month sentence, entered pursuant to his guilty plea. On
appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of Truesdale's sentence. his right to do so, Truesdale has
Although informed of not filed a pro se
supplemental brief. affirm.
After a thorough review of the record, we
Truesdale asserts that his sentence was longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, especially given the disparity between the crack and powder cocaine Guidelines and their effect on his advisory Guidelines range. 2 While
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), held that a district court may conclude that the Guidelines' crack cocaine/powder cocaine disparity yields a sentence greater than necessary, Kimbrough did not hold that a district court must
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
In his plea agreement, Truesdale waived his right to appeal in certain limited circumstances. Because the Government has not asserted the waiver as a bar to this appeal, we do not consider it. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
conclude that any sentence within the Guidelines involving crack cocaine yields a sentence greater than necessary. Here, the district court clearly was not sentencing based solely upon the advisory and Guidelines relied range. the The nature record, court and his
prior involvement with controlled substances, and his status as a career offender to conclude that a sentence within the
Guidelines range was appropriate.
Thus, we hold that the court
did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying presumption of reasonableness to
sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case for meritorious issues and have found none. Thus, we affirm Truesdale's convictions and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be 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. 3
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?