United States v. Frank Snyder , 499 F. App'x 294 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4351
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    FRANK DAMON SNYDER, a/k/a Frank Damon Snider,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
    Judge. (8:03-cr-00194-DKC-5)
    Submitted:    December 3, 2012             Decided:   December 14, 2012
    Before MOTZ and     KING,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elita C.     Amato, LAW OFFICE OF ELITA C. AMATO, Arlington,
    Virginia,    for Appellant.   Deborah A. Johnston, Chan Park,
    Assistant    United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Damon Snyder was convicted by a jury in 2004 of
    conspiracy to distribute powder cocaine, cocaine base (crack),
    and     PCP,     and       was    initially      sentenced     to     360      months’
    imprisonment.          Snyder appealed his conviction and sentence.                  We
    affirmed his conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded
    for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).          On remand, the district court reimposed the 360-
    month sentence.            Snyder again appealed his sentence; however,
    before appellate briefs were filed, he moved for a remand and
    resentencing in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 85
    , 108 (2007).            We granted a limited remand for this purpose.
    While    Snyder      was    awaiting       resentencing,     the    district    court
    reduced his sentence to 324 months on its own motion pursuant to
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) (2006).
    For reasons that are not clear from the record, Snyder
    was not resentenced until April 2012, when the district court
    rejected       his   attempt      to    challenge   the    determination       of   his
    offense        level       and        criminal   history     category,         finding
    relitigation of those issues barred by the mandate rule.                        United
    States v. Bell, 
    5 F.3d 64
    , 66 (4th Cir. 1993).                      In recognition
    of Snyder’s rehabilitative conduct while incarcerated and the
    remaining       disparity        in    sentencing   for    crack    offenses,       the
    district court varied below the Guidelines range and imposed a
    2
    sentence of 300 months.            The court declined to impose a lower
    sentence because of the large quantities of drugs involved in
    the offense and stated that it would impose the same sentence
    even if Snyder were in criminal history category III rather than
    category IV.
    Snyder now appeals his 300-month sentence.                   Snyder’s
    attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting that, in her opinion, there are no
    meritorious       issues   for    appeal,    but    questioning     whether   the
    district    court     unconstitutionally        considered     certain    facts,
    misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines, or failed to comply with
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2006).           Snyder was advised of his right to
    file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one.
    We    review    a    sentence   under    a   deferential   abuse-of-
    discretion standard.            Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007).     The first step in this review requires the court to
    ensure     that    the     district    court       committed   no   significant
    procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines
    range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to
    adequately explain the sentence.              United States v. Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 328 (4th Cir. 2009).              If the sentence is procedurally
    reasonable, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the
    sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
    Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .             A sentence within or below a properly
    3
    calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.                         United
    States v. Susi, 
    674 F.3d 278
    , 289 (4th Cir. 2012).                              We have
    reviewed the record and conclude that Snyder’s sentence is both
    procedurally and substantively reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, having reviewed the entire
    record in this case and having found no meritorious issues for
    appeal,     we   affirm     the    sentence.         This      court    requires   that
    counsel inform Snyder, in writing, of his right to petition the
    Supreme     Court    of   the     United   States     for   further      review.     If
    Snyder 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
    Snyder.      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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-4351

Citation Numbers: 499 F. App'x 294

Judges: Motz, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/14/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024