United States v. Jennings , 210 F. App'x 314 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND JENNINGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00015-1)
Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Andrew Jennings, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Jennings pled guilty to bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). The district court
sentenced him as a career offender to a 151-month term of
imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline
range. Jennings’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Jennings’ sentence but
stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Jennings was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel questions whether the district court violated
Jennings’ Sixth Amendment rights by classifying Jennings as a
career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1
(2004), where the predicate convictions were not charged in the
indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d
515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005).
Counsel also suggests that Jennings’ 151-month sentence
is unreasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), a district court must calculate the applicable guideline
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
- 2 -
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-
Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within the statutorily
prescribed range. Id. at 433. “[A] sentence within the proper
advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Contrary to counsel’s assertion, the district court
properly relied on Jennings’ North Carolina felony conviction for
possession with intent to sell and deliver crack cocaine to find
that Jennings qualified as a career offender. In imposing the
sentence, the district court appropriately treated the guidelines
as advisory and considered the § 3553(a) factors, and the sentence
falls within a properly calculated guideline range and is well
within the statutory maximum sentence of twenty years. See 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a). Thus, we conclude that the sentence is
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Jennings’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -