US v. Brian Fanary
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [998713527-2]. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00003-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998781171]. [10-5101]
Appeal: 10-5101
Document: 50
Date Filed: 02/06/2012
Page: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5101
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN FANARY, a/k/a Brian Marshall,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00003-1)
Submitted:
January 9, 2012
Decided:
February 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis M. Hart, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant
United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5101
Document: 50
Date Filed: 02/06/2012
Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Brian Fanary pled guilty
to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of oxycodone,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of
a
firearm
by
a
convicted
felon,
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
The district court sentenced
Fanary to eighty-five months in prison, seven months above the
advisory Guidelines range.
Fanary
assistance
of
first
counsel
Fanary timely appealed his sentence.
argues
when
that
his
he
was
defense
denied
attorney
effective
failed
to
challenge the drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing
purposes,
contending
personal
use.
that
Unless
a
portion
an
of
those
were
for
ineffectiveness
attorney’s
drugs
is
conclusively apparent on the face of the record, ineffective
assistance claims are generally not addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008);
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999)
(providing standard and noting that ineffective assistance of
counsel claims generally should be raised by motion under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)).
falls
short
of
this
exacting
The record in this case
standard.
Therefore,
Fanary’s
ineffective assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.
Alternatively, Fanary challenges the reasonableness of
his
sentence
by
arguing
that
there
2
could
be
no
legitimate
Appeal: 10-5101
Document: 50
Date Filed: 02/06/2012
Page: 3 of 5
finding of the drug quantity where the defense of personal use
was
never
applying
States,
raised.
an
552
We
abuse
U.S.
of
38,
review
a
sentence
for
discretion
standard.
51
see
(2007);
Gall
also
United
Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).
examine
the
reasonableness,
sentence
for
“significant
v.
United
States
v.
In so doing, we
procedural
error,”
including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to
consider
selecting
a
the
[18
sentence
U.S.C.]
based
on
§ 3553(a)
clearly
[(2006)]
erroneous
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
factors,
facts,
or
Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
The
Government
bears
the
burden
of
proving,
by
a
preponderance of the evidence, the drug quantity attributable to
a defendant.
Cir.
2002).
calculations
district
United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 425 (4th
Generally,
under
court’s
in
reviewing
the
Guidelines,
this
legal
conclusions
de
findings for clear error,”
the
district
Court
novo
court’s
“review[s]
and
its
the
factual
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d
621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), and will “find clear error only if, on the entire
evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.”
Id. at 631 (internal quotation
3
Appeal: 10-5101
marks
Document: 50
and
Date Filed: 02/06/2012
citation
omitted).
Page: 4 of 5
However,
because
he
failed
to
object to the district court’s calculation of drug quantity at
sentencing, Fanary’s claim is reviewed for plain error.
United
States v. Blatstein, 482 F.3d 725, 731 (4th Cir. 2007).
Rule
32(i)(3)(A)
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure permits a district court to “accept any undisputed
portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact.”
R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A).
to
a
finding
in
the
Fed.
Moreover, even if a defendant objects
PSR,
in
the
absence
of
an
affirmative
showing that the information is not accurate, the court is “free
to adopt the findings of the [PSR] without more specific inquiry
or explanation.”
United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th
Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, there were no objections to the drug quantities
attributed to Fanary, much less any affirmative showing that the
information in the PSR was not accurate.
We therefore conclude
that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by
relying on the undisputed facts in the PSR to determine the drug
quantity attributed to Fanary for sentencing purposes and that,
accordingly, Fanary’s sentence is reasonable.
For
these
reasons,
we
affirm
Fanary’s
sentence.
Fanary’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
4
because
the
facts
and
legal
Appeal: 10-5101
Document: 50
Date Filed: 02/06/2012
Page: 5 of 5
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
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?