United States v. Phifer , 275 F. App'x 197 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COURTNEY SIRRON PHIFER, a/k/a Cort,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV)
Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: April 25, 2008
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher A. Beechler, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Sirron Phifer pled guilty, without the benefit
of a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base and marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Phifer’s attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating his conclusion that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court abused its
discretion in imposing a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.
Phifer was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not done so. The Government declined to file a
responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597-98 (2007);
see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir.
2007). When sentencing a defendant, a district court must:
(1) properly calculate the guideline range; (2) determine whether
a sentence within that range serves the factors set out in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); (3) implement
mandatory statutory limitations; and (4) explain its reasons for
selecting a sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. In the Fourth
Circuit, “[a] sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Allen, 491
- 2 -
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness
for within-guidelines sentence).
Our review of the record reveals no procedural or
substantive error with respect to Phifer’s sentence. Phifer’s 120-
month sentence was below the applicable guidelines range and is the
statutory minimum sentence applicable to his offense. We therefore
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the sentence.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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 Phifer requests that
such 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 Phifer.
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 -