United States v. Anderson , 241 F. App'x 912 ( 2007 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 7, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4064
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES M. ANDERSON, a/k/a Hollywood,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00164-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Edward H. Weis, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United
States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James M. Anderson pled guilty to distributing a quantity
of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and was
sentenced to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment. Anderson appeals
his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by seeking to
impose a “reasonable” sentence rather than a sentence “sufficient,
but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). He also contends that
the court failed to adequately consider the effect in his case of
the 100:1 sentencing ratio for cocaine and crack offenses. Last,
he argues that his sentence, at the bottom of the advisory
guideline range, is greater than necessary to further the purposes
of § 3553(a)(2). We affirm.
At sentencing, Anderson did not challenge the guideline
calculation, but asked the court to impose a variance sentence
below the range based on a number of factors, including the
perceived unfairness of the guidelines for crack offenses, the fact
that he generally sold small amounts of crack and did not engage in
violence or possess a firearm, and his full cooperation with
authorities even before his arrest. The court found no basis for
a variance. A sentence within a correctly calculated advisory
guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United States v.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption of
- 2 -
reasonableness standard). Our review of the record discloses that
Anderson has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -