United States v. Fields , 259 F. App'x 525 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD LYNN FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:02-cr-00356-AMD)
Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. A.
David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lynn Fields appeals the district court’s judgment
on remand for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). On appeal, Fields has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that his
sentence of fifty-one months was unreasonable.* Finding no error,
we affirm.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
a district court must engage in a multi-step process at sentencing.
First, after making appropriate findings of fact, the court must
correctly determine the applicable advisory guidelines range and
consult the range in imposing sentence. United States v. Moreland,
437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). The court is then required to
consider “other relevant factors set forth in the guidelines and
those factors set forth in § 3553(a) before imposing sentence.”
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. A sentence within a properly calculated
advisory guideline range is presumed reasonable. Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).
On appeal, this court will affirm a sentence as long as
it is within the prescribed statutory range and is reasonable.
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 547. Reasonableness review involves procedural
*
Fields was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief. He has elected not to do so.
- 2 -
and substantive components. Moreland, 437 F.3d at 434. “A
sentence may be procedurally unreasonable, for example, if the
district court provides an inadequate statement of reasons . . .
A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the court relies on
an improper factor or rejects policies articulated by Congress or
the Sentencing Commission.” Id.
Fields’ sentence was procedurally reasonable. In
conformity with this court’s opinion and the presentence report,
the district court determined that Fields had a base offense level
of twenty and a criminal history category of III. The district
court’s calculation resulted in an advisory guidelines range of
forty-one to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. The Government argued
that a two level enhancement for obstruction of justice should be
applied based on the fact that Fields committed perjury and
suborned perjury during his trial. A two level enhancement would
have resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 51 to 63 months’
imprisonment. Although the district court concluded that Fields
committed perjury and suborned perjury, the district court declined
to enhance Fields’ sentence, finding that a sentence of fifty-one
months was appropriate. Prior to imposing that sentence, the
district court considered defense counsel’s arguments for a
sentence of forty-one months’ imprisonment. United States v.
Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (2006). The district court
rejected counsel’s arguments and determined that the factors in 18
- 3 -
U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need for deterrence, the
seriousness of Fields’ offense, and the need to promote respect for
the law, were served by a sentence of fifty-one months’
imprisonment.
Fields’ sentence was also substantively reasonable.
Fields argues that he should have received a sentence of forty-one
months’ imprisonment because his criminal history overrepresented
the seriousness of his past conduct and because of physical and
mental disabilities he suffered during his teenage years. The
district court considered and rejected these arguments at
sentencing. Rather, the district court was particularly concerned
that Fields’ case involved an AK-47 rifle and determined that a
sentence of fifty-one months was appropriate. Fields’ sentence,
within his advisory guidelines, is presumed reasonable, and he has
failed to rebut that presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Fields, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Fields 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 Fields.
- 4 -
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
- 5 -