eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2012-05

United States v. Raymond Leech , 481 F. App'x 846 ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND O. LEECH, a/k/a Neil,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00427-WDQ-2)
Submitted:   April 30, 2012                       Decided:   May 23, 2012
Before TRAXLER,   Chief   Judge,   and   DUNCAN    and   KEENAN,   Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald C. Ruter, THE LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond    O.     Leech     appeals      the    151-month    sentence
imposed by the district court following this court’s remand for
resentencing.    On appeal, Leech’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness    of    the     sentence.         Leech      filed   a   pro     se
supplemental brief, in which he raises several challenges to his
conviction and sentence, including a challenge to the district
court’s determination of the quantity of drugs for which he was
held accountable for sentencing purposes.                  Finding no error, we
affirm.
Both Leech and his counsel question the reasonableness
of Leech’s sentence.          In reviewing a sentence, we must first
ensure that the district court did not commit any significant
procedural    error,   such    as     failing   to    properly   calculate      the
applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence.     Gall v. United States,
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).                   Once
we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
    Id. If the sentence 
    imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing
Guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable.                 United States v.
2
Mendoza-Mendoza,
    597 F.3d 212
    ,    216     (4th       Cir.    2010).           This
presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is
unreasonable       when     measured         against       the     §    3553(a)          factors.”
United    States    v.     Montes-Pineda,
    445 F.3d 375
    ,    379       (4th    Cir.
2006)    (internal       quotation          marks    omitted).            Upon       review,       we
conclude    that    the     district         court    committed          no    procedural          or
substantive        error        in    sentencing            Leech        to        151        months’
imprisonment,       a     sentence          within        the    applicable           Sentencing
Guidelines range.          See United States v. Lynn,
    592 F.3d 572
    , 577
(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.
Williams,
    29 F.3d 172
    ,      174-75       (4th     Cir.    1994)      (holding          that
defendant’s       stipulation         to    drug     amounts       prior       to     sentencing
waived right to appeal issue).
Turning        to    Leech’s           remaining       pro        se     issues,      we
conclude    that     the       district       court       permitted       Leech          to     fully
allocute at the resentencing hearing, as was his right.                                       United
States v. Muhammad,
    478 F.3d 247
    , 250 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding
that     defendant        “ha[s]        a    renewed         right       to        allocute       at
resentencing”).             Additionally,             Leech        is     foreclosed             from
challenging his conviction in this appeal, because we affirmed
his conviction in a prior proceeding and no exceptions exist
permitting    Leech       to    now    raise       these     foreclosed            claims.        See
United    States     v.     Bell,
    5 F.3d 64
    ,       66-67    (4th        Cir.       1993)
(discussing mandate rule).
3
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 Leech, in writing, of his right to
petition   the   Supreme      Court   of       the    United     States      for   further
review.    If Leech 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
Leech.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal    conclusions    are    adequately            presented    in   the     materials
before    the   court   and    argument        would     not     aid   the    decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4