US v. Walter Deotis Foster

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:04-cr-01039-TLW-1,4:11-cv-70062-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999077754].. [12-7436]

Appeal: 12-7436

Doc: 30

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER DEOTIS FOSTER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:04-cr-01039-TLW-1)

Submitted:

March 26, 2013

Decided:

April 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. James Hoffmeyer, LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina;
Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7436

Doc: 30

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Walter Deotis Foster pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute five grams or
more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000), and the court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment.
On

appeal,

counsel

California,

386

meritorious

issues

has

U.S.

filed

738

for

a

brief

(1967),
appeal

pursuant

stating

but

to

that

Anders

there

questioning

are

whether

v.
no
the

district court correctly classified Foster as a career offender
pursuant

to

U.S.

§ 4B1.1(a) (2004).

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

(“USSG”)

Foster was advised of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so.

We affirm.

We review Foster’s sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
reasonable

among

other

Gall

v.

United

A sentence is procedurally
court

properly

calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range.

See id.

at 49-51.

if,

standard.

requirements,

the

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

the district court did not err by classifying Foster as a career
offender.

Even absent consideration of his failure to stop for

a blue light conviction, Foster had three prior convictions for
felony drug offenses and one prior conviction for a crime of
violence.

See USSG § 4B1.1(a) (requiring defendant have “at

least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence
2

Appeal: 12-7436

or

Doc: 30

a

Filed: 04/02/2013

controlled

substance

Pg: 3 of 3

offense”

to

qualify

as

career

offender).
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 Foster, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

review.

If

Foster

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

for

be

further

filed,

but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Foster.
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

3