United States v. Blount , 257 F. App'x 603 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4413
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ETOYI MONRAY BLOUNT, a/k/a E,
    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-00009-31)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2007            Decided:   December 7, 2007
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert W. Adams, Hickory, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Etoyi Monray Blount pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
    with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,
    more than five kilograms of cocaine, and more than 1000 kilograms
    of marijuana, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     (2000).               The district
    court imposed a 262-month sentence, the bottom of the advisory
    sentencing guideline range.         Blount’s counsel has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), suggesting
    that Blount’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment but stating
    that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
    Blount was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief but has not done so.        We affirm.
    Counsel    suggests     that     the    district      court   violated
    Blount’s Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing by applying the
    guidelines in a mandatory fashion.          After United States v. Booker,
    
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), courts 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. 2007).
    United States v. Moreland, 
    437 F.3d 424
    , 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied,   
    126 S. Ct. 2054
       (2006).         This   court   will    affirm   a
    post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed
    range and is reasonable.” 
    Id. at 433
     (internal quotation marks and
    citation omitted).         “A sentence within the proper Sentencing
    - 2 -
    Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”                     United States v.
    Allen, 
    491 F.3d 178
    , 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
    States, 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    , 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
    rebuttable       presumption    of    reasonableness        to    within-guidelines
    sentence).
    Here, the district court sentenced Blount in accordance
    with     Booker,      properly        calculating     the        guideline       range,
    appropriately treating the guidelines as advisory, and considering
    the § 3553(a) factors.          Blount’s 262-month sentence is the bottom
    of the guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence
    of life imprisonment.          See 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (b)(1)(A) (West 1999 &
    Supp. 2007).       Finally, neither Blount nor the record suggests any
    information so compelling as to rebut the presumption that a
    sentence     within      the   properly    calculated       guideline       range    is
    reasonable. We therefore 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 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 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-4413

Citation Numbers: 257 F. App'x 603

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/7/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024