US v. Lamar Lee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999310814].. [13-4498]

Appeal: 13-4498

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/07/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMAR RICHARD LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1)

Submitted:

January 22, 2014

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 7, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia,
Timothy
Richard
Murphy,
Special
Assistant
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

for Appellant.
United
States

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4498

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/07/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Lamar Lee pled guilty to three counts of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012), and to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm,

in

(2012).

violation

The

district

of

18

U.S.C.

court

§§ 922(g)(1),

sentenced

Lee

to

924(a)(2)

188

months’

imprisonment on the drug counts and 120 months’ on the firearm
count, all to run concurrently.

On appeal, Lee’s counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal

but

questioning

whether

Lee’s

sentence

is

reasonable.

Lee has filed a pro se brief arguing that the district court
abused

its

discretion

competency hearing.

by

failing

to

sua

sponte

order

a

We affirm.

Lee contends that statements made by his counsel and
the Government, the district court’s decision to order a mental
health

evaluation

in

the

judgment,

and

Lee’s

subsequent

diagnosis of schizophrenia required the district court to hold a
competency

hearing.

To

prevail

on

his

claim,

Lee

“must

establish that the trial court ignored facts raising a bona fide
doubt regarding [his] competency.”

United States v. Moussaoui,

591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010).

There is no fixed standard

for

when

a

competency

evaluation
2

must

be

ordered,

and

the

Appeal: 13-4498

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/07/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

court’s decision in this regard is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion.

Id.

Upon examination, Lee is not arguing that he

was incompetent to stand trial but that his mental health was a
mitigating

factor

at

sentencing

for

his

offenses.

We

have

thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that none of the
statements on which Lee relies raised a bona fide doubt about
his competency.
Next,
sentence.

counsel

questions

51

reasonableness

of

Lee’s

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an

abuse of discretion standard.
38,

the

(2007).

We

“first

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
ensure

that

the

district

court

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
[properly] calculate . . . the Guidelines range, . . . failing
to

consider

selecting

a

the

[18

sentence

U.S.C.]
based

on

§ 3553(a)
clearly

[(2012)]

erroneous

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
51.

When

sentence,

considering
we

“take

circumstances.”

Id.

the

substantive

into

account

factors,
facts,

552 U.S. at

reasonableness
the

or

totality

of
of

the
the

If the sentence is within or below a

properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that
the sentence is reasonable.

United States v. Yooho Weon, 722

F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013).
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

accurately

calculated the applicable Guidelines range and did not commit
3

Appeal: 13-4498

Doc: 25

procedural

Filed: 03/07/2014

error

when

Pg: 4 of 5

sentencing

Lee.

See

United

States

v.

King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-83 (4th Cir.) (holding that Alford ∗ pleas
count in calculating criminal history), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.
216 (2012).
sufficient

We also conclude that the district court provided
reasons

for

its

within-Guidelines

sentence,

basing

its sentence on Lee’s recidivism, the seriousness of his crimes,
the

danger

mitigating

that

he

posed

factors.

to

Given

the
the

public,
district

and

the

lack

court’s

of

thorough

explanation of its reasons, Lee has not rebutted the presumption
of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Lee, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

counsel

believes

the

United

that

such

a

States

for

petition

further

would

be

frivolous, but Lee nonetheless requests a petition be filed,
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Lee.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
∗

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

4

materials

Appeal: 13-4498

before

Doc: 25

this

court

Filed: 03/07/2014

and

Pg: 5 of 5

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5