US v. Emanual Shorten

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00750-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929187].. [15-4806]

Appeal: 15-4806

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMANUAL SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cr-00750-TLW-1)

Submitted:

August 31, 2016

Decided:

September 14, 2016

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. James Hunter May, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4806

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Emanual Shorten appeals the sentence imposed after he pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),
846 (2012).

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has found no
meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

but

questioning

whether

the

district court should have granted a variance based on Shorten’s
family support and the sentencing disparity between cocaine base
and powder cocaine.

Shorten was advised of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Shorten.
See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016)
(stating standard of review).

We discern no procedural sentencing

error, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and
Shorten has failed to rebut the presumption that his withinGuidelines

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable,

see

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
for

any

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

and

have

found

none.

Accordingly, we affirm Shorten’s conviction and sentence.

This

court requires that counsel inform Shorten, in writing, of his
2

Appeal: 15-4806

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Shorten requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Shorten.

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