United States v. Bailey , 160 F. App'x 309 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4239
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HERBERT   BRUCE BAILEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg.    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (CR-03-402)
    Submitted: December 22, 2005               Decided:   December 28, 2005
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Herbert Bruce Bailey pled guilty to distribution of 23.31
    grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1)
    (2000).    The   district   court    sentenced    Bailey   to   100   months’
    imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and ordered payment
    of a $100 statutory assessment.*            Bailey’s counsel has filed a
    brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1067),
    stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
    questioning    whether    the    district     court   complied    with     the
    requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Bailey’s plea, and
    whether the sentence imposed was reasonable.            Bailey was given an
    opportunity to file a pro se brief, and has asserted error pursuant
    to United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005).
    Bailey did not move in the district court to withdraw his
    guilty plea; therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
    hearing   is   reviewed   for   plain   error.    See    United   States    v.
    Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th Cir. 2002).             We have carefully
    reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain
    *
    The probation officer calculated a sentencing guideline range
    of 135 to 169 months’ imprisonment founded on a base offense level
    of 38 (using a drug quantity of 5.5 kilos of crack cocaine and 3.2
    kilos of powder cocaine), an adjusted offense level of 33, and a
    criminal history category of I. After careful consideration of the
    facts and evidence, the district court applied an additional three-
    level reduction to the offense level after considering the drug
    weight which Bailey admitted distributing, his sparse criminal
    record, and his lack of leadership involvement, with an attendant
    revised guideline range of 97 to 121 months.
    - 2 -
    error in the district court’s acceptance of Bailey’s guilty plea.
    See United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
    We   further     find   that    the    district     court   properly
    “consult[ed the] Guidelines and [took] them into account when
    sentencing,” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767, that it made all the
    factual findings appropriate for that determination, considered the
    sentencing range along with the other factors described in 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and imposed a sentence
    that was “within the statutorily prescribed range and . . .
    reasonable.”    United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th
    Cir. 2005). Contrary to the assertions of Bailey and his attorney,
    the district court properly sentenced Bailey in compliance with the
    mandates of Booker and the sentence was reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.   We therefore affirm Bailey’s 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
    was served on the client.
    - 3 -
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4239

Citation Numbers: 160 F. App'x 309

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 12/28/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024