US v. Shaking Fisher

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00424-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999756089].. [15-4426]

Appeal: 15-4426

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4426

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAKING FISHER, a/k/a Shy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00424-CCE-1)

Submitted:

January 28, 2016

Decided:

February 17, 2016

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4426

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shaking Fisher pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
Count 1 of his indictment, distributing cocaine base (“crack”),
and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment.

On appeal,

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738

(1967),

appeal,

but

asserting
raising

there

the

sentence was reasonable.

are

no

following

meritorious
issue:

grounds

whether

for

Fisher’s

Fisher was informed of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has failed to do so.

For

the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–Santana,
668

F.3d

properly

95,

100-01

calculated

(4th

Cir.

Fisher’s

2012).

advisory

The

district

Sentencing

court

Guidelines

range, discussed some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
and explained why it imposed a sentence below the Guidelines
range but above what Fisher had sought.

Thus, we find that

Fisher’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th Cir.
2009).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Fisher’s conviction and sentence.
2

We

This court

Appeal: 15-4426

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

the

Supreme

review.

If

Fisher

Court

of

requests

the
that

United
a

States

petition

be

for

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 Fisher.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3