US v. Roosevelt Cooper


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00607-JFA-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999848154]. [15-4536]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4536 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROOSEVELT ALONZO COOPER, a/k/a Zo, a/k/a Chico, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00607-JFA-3) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 9, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T. Micah Leddy, LEDDY LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4536 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Alonzo Cooper appeals his sentence of 120 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine (b)(1)(A), base, 846 in violation (2012). of Appellate 21 U.S.C. counsel has §§ 841(a)(1), filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the reasonableness of Cooper’s sentence. We review deferential Cooper’s sentence abuse-of-discretion We affirm. for reasonableness standard.” United “under States a v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). consideration of reasonableness. both its This review entails appellate procedural Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. and its substantive “A statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable . . . .” United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts, and 2 sufficiently explained the Appeal: 15-4536 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/09/2016 chosen sentence. is at the Pg: 3 of 3 Furthermore, Cooper’s sentence of 120 months statutory minimum. Therefore, we conclude that Cooper’s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cooper’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cooper, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cooper 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 Cooper. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?