US v. Tahara Gainey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00088-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998823226].. [11-5015]

Appeal: 11-5015

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAHARA NICOLE GAINEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00088-JAB-1)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-5015

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tahara Nicole Gainey pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea

agreement

“crack”

and

was

to

distributing

sentenced

to

53.2

216

grams

months’

of

cocaine

base

imprisonment.

On

appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but raising the following issue: whether Gainey’s
sentence was unreasonable because the district court imposed a
sentence greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, whether inside or outside
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, applying a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.
38,

49

(2007).

We

first

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

review

a

sentence

for

significant

procedural error and then evaluate the sentence for substantive
error.

Id. at 51; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328

(4th Cir. 2009).
sentence,

which

We find no abuse of discretion in Gainey’s
was

imposed

within

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

a

properly

calculated

United States v. Allen,

491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A sentence within the proper
Sentencing

Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

reasonable.”)

(citation omitted); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347
(2007).
2

Appeal: 11-5015

Document: 20

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Page: 3 of 3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We

therefore

affirm

Gainey’s

conviction

and

sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Gainey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Gainey 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 Gainey.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3