United States v. Hunter , 305 F. App'x 67 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TYRON JEROME HUNTER, a/k/a Tyrone Jerome Hunter,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00251-LHT-1)
Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ann L. Hester, Emily Marroquin,
Charlotte, North Carolina, Fredilyn Sison, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyron Jerome Hunter pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2006), and
was sentenced to 240 months in prison. Counsel for Hunter has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), alleging that she has found no meritorious issues for
appeal but asserting that the district court may have improperly
calculated Hunter’s Guidelines range. Hunter was notified of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done
so. The Government has declined to file a responding brief.
Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review. After a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing at which
Hunter admitted his guilt, the district court sustained one of
Hunter’s objections to his presentence investigation report and
adopted the remaining findings contained therein, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sentenced Hunter to the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See United States
v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) (“A statutorily
required sentence . . . is per se reasonable.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Hunter in
2
writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Hunter requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may motion this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Hunter. 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