United States v. Wright , 160 F. App'x 284 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGEANA WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-15-REM)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy M. Sirk, Keyser, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen
Donald Warner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Regeana Wright appeals the 120-month concurrent sentences
imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute more than five grams of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and to interstate
travel to promote a drug business, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1952(a)(3) (2000). Wright’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Wright’s
sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Wright was informed of her right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel asserts that, in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the
120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence Wright received is
too harsh. Wright’s claim is foreclosed by our decision in United
States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.) (“Even . . . after
Booker, . . . a district court has no discretion to impose a
sentence outside of the statutory range established by Congress for
the offense of conviction.”), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 288 (2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found
none. Accordingly, we affirm Wright’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
- 2 -
further review. If the client 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 the client. 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 -