US v. Roosevelt Cooper

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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