US v. Trenesia Doctor
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4943 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRENESIA S. DOCTOR, a/k/a Neenee, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00302-DCN-1) Submitted: December 10, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Trenesia eighty-eight following her month S. Doctor appeals imposed her by conviction the to and the
sentence plea to
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006).
Doctor's counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly denied Doctor's request for a downward departure based on the safety valve provision in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
("USSG") § 5C1.2(a) (2007).
Doctor was advised of her right to We
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. affirm.
We review Doctor's sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step
in this review requires us to ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. United States v. Significant
procedural errors include "`failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any 2
deviation from the Guidelines range.'"
United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Doctor questions whether the district court properly denied her request for a downward departure based on the safety valve leads provision, us to USSG § 5C1.2(a). that failed the to Our review of the record
correctly she had
satisfied all the requirements for application of the safety valve. We reduced the also conclude that the district by court properly months
pursuant to USSG §§ 5C1.3, 5K2.23 because Doctor had served a state sentence of that length based on conduct that was included as relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction. Thus,
we conclude that the district court properly calculated Doctor's guideline range. The eighty-eight month statutorily required See United 2008) ("A
sentence that Doctor received is per se reasonable. States v. Farrior, required Doctor's 535 F.3d 210, . . is 224 . is both (4th per Cir. se
substantively reasonable. 3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Doctor in writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Doctor 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. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Doctor. 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
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?