United States v. Kevin McHaney , 522 F. App'x 190 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN JEROME MCHANEY, a/k/a Whoomp Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:11-cr-02356-JMC-1)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Jerome McHaney pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and twenty-eight
grams or more of cocaine base. On appeal, counsel files a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising
the following issue: whether the district court erred by
imposing a four-level enhancement for McHaney’s leadership role
in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 3B1.1(a) (2011). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Generally we review a sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007), and review sentencing adjustments based on a
defendant’s role in the offense for clear error. United States
v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002). Under USSG
§ 3B1.1(a), a four-level increase is warranted if “the defendant
was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved
five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” Here,
McHaney stipulated to this enhancement in his plea agreement,
which is supported by the factual record.
At sentencing, McHaney benefitted from the
Government’s motion for a downward departure for substantial
assistance, which the district court granted. Thus, McHaney was
2
sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, far below his correctly
calculated Sentencing Guidelines range of 292-365 months of
imprisonment and the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years. We
find no reversible error in the district court’s application of
the USSG § 3B1.1(a) enhancement, especially in light of the
stipulation. See United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 184
(4th Cir. 2009) (listing factors to be considered for the
enhancement); USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. ∗
We therefore affirm McHaney’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform McHaney, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If McHaney 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 McHaney. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
∗
Despite notice, McHaney did not file a pro se supplemental
brief.
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4