United States v. Andres Chacon ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4611
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDRES CHACON, a/k/a Dre, a/k/a Buddha,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.     J. Michelle Childs, District
    Judge. (6:13-cr-00183-JMC-3)
    Submitted:   March 18, 2015                 Decided:   March 27, 2015
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin   T.   Stepp,   Assistant  Federal   Public   Defender,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.         Andrew Burke
    Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andres Chacon pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
    intent     to    distribute       and   distribute       5    kilograms     or     more   of
    cocaine and 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation
    of   21    U.S.C.       § 846     (2012).        The    district    court        calculated
    Chacon’s Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual (2013) at 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment and sentenced
    Chacon to 60 months’ imprisonment.                     On appeal, Chacon’s counsel
    has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
    but raising as an issue for review whether the district court
    erred in failing to afford Chacon sentencing credit for 208 days
    he served on a discharged term of incarceration.                         The Government
    declined to file a brief.                Chacon was informed of his right to
    file   a   pro    se     supplemental       brief,      but   he   has     not    done    so.
    We affirm.
    Under     18     U.S.C.     § 3585(b)      (2012),     a    criminal       defendant
    “shall     be    given     credit       toward     the    service     of     a    term    of
    imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention
    prior to the date the sentence commences.”                           Section 3585(b),
    however, does not permit a district court to award credit at
    sentencing.           United States v. Wilson, 
    503 U.S. 329
    , 333 (1992).
    Rather, only the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of
    Prisons,        may     compute     sentencing         credit.       
    Id. at 333-37.
    2
    Therefore, as counsel correctly concedes, the district court was
    without authority to award Chacon sentencing credit for the 208
    days he served on the discharged term.
    Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
    the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.   We    therefore   affirm   the   district      court’s   judgment.
    This court requires that counsel inform Chacon, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.      If Chacon 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 Chacon.
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4611

Judges: Motz, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 3/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024