US v. Darrell Spencer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00035-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999082731].. [12-4692]

Appeal: 12-4692

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL SPENCER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:12-cr-00035-1)

Submitted:

March 28, 2013

Decided:

April 9, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Tinney, Jr., THE TINNEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Monica D. Coleman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4692

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Darrell Spencer appeals his 120-month below-Guidelines
sentence imposed after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting the
distribution
§ 841(a)(1)
counsel

of

cocaine

(2006),

for

and

Spencer

California,

386

meritorious

issues

base,
18

filed

U.S.

738

for

in

violation

U.S.C.
a

§ 2

brief

(1967),

appeal

of

(2006).

On

pursuant

to

asserting

but

21

appeal,

Anders

there

questioning

U.S.C.

are

whether

v.
no
the

district court properly applied the career offender enhancement
in

the

Sentencing

Guidelines.

Spencer

has

not

filed

a

supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so.
We affirm.
“A defendant is a career offender if (1) [he] was at
least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the instant
offense . . . ; (2) the instant offense . . . is a felony that
is . . . a controlled substance offense; and (3) [he] has at
least

two

prior

felony

substance

offense.”

§ 4B1.1(a)

(2011).

convictions
U.S.

“Any

of

.

Sentencing
prior

.

.

a

controlled

Guidelines

sentence

of

Manual

imprisonment

exceeding one year and one month that was imposed within fifteen
years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant offense
[and that] . . . , whenever imposed, . . . resulted in the
defendant being incarcerated during any part of such fifteenyear

period

[is

counted].”

Id.
2

§ 4A1.2(e);

see

id.

§ 4B1.2

Appeal: 12-4692

Doc: 25

cmt. n.3

Filed: 04/09/2013

(counting

provisions

Pg: 3 of 4

of

§ 4A1.2

are

applicable

to

counting of convictions under § 4B1.1).
Spencer was convicted of distribution of cocaine base
in 1990 and was sentenced to sixty months in prison.
placed on supervised release in 1994.
was

revoked

until

in

October

January

1996,

1997.

In

He was

His supervised release

and

Spencer

2002,

Spencer

returned
was

to

prison

convicted

of

conspiracy to distribute cocaine and sentenced to fifteen years
in

prison

with

ten

years

incarcerated until June 2007.

suspended.

Spencer

remained

The drug sale on which Spencer’s

instant conviction is based occurred on August 18, 2011.

Both

of Spencer’s prior drug felonies resulted in his incarceration
during

the

fifteen

years

prior

to

the

instant

offense

and,

accordingly, application of the career offender enhancement was
proper.

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Spencer’s below-Guideline sentence was neither procedurally nor
substantively unreasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Spencer, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Spencer

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3

Appeal: 12-4692

Doc: 25

counsel

may

Filed: 04/09/2013

move

representation.

in

this

Pg: 4 of 4

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Spencer.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4