US v. Davinda Barber

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to extend filing time [998403047-2] Originating case number: 0:09-cr-00207-CMC-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998429231] [09-4807]

US v. Davinda Barber

Doc. 0

Case: 09-4807 Document: 67

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVINDA TONNELLIS BARBER, a/k/a T Barber, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:09-cr-00207-CMC-4) Submitted: September 2, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-4807 Document: 67

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Davinda Tonnellis Barber appeals his conviction and

262 month sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. a §§ brief 841(a)(1), in this (b)(1)(A); court in 846 (2006). with Counsel Anders has v.

filed

accordance

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious district issues for appeal but questioning Barber's whether plea the and

court

properly

accepted

guilty

imposed a reasonable sentence.

Barber was advised of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, the district court

properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. The

record establishes that Barber's sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. (2007) (providing that 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 therefore deny Barber's motion to extend the time to 2

Case: 09-4807 Document: 67

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 3

file

his

pro

se

supplemental

brief

and

affirm

the

district

court's judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform her

client, in writing, 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 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 the client. 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