United States v. Patterson ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARREN KEITH PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-02-178)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Zeszotarski, Jr., POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darren Keith Patterson pled guilty without the benefit of
a plea agreement to three counts of car-jacking and aiding and
abetting car-jacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119, 2 (2000).
Patterson was sentenced to 115 months’ imprisonment. The district
court also specified, pursuant to this court’s recommendation in
United States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order),
opinion issued by 381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert.
granted and judgment vacated, 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005), an
alternative sentence if the guidelines were deemed not mandatory.
The district court stated the alternative sentence in that event
would be 125 months’ imprisonment. In his appeal, filed pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Patterson
claims that the sentence imposed pursuant to the guidelines
violates the holding in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738(2005). Patterson has requested that this court assign new
counsel.
In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the federal
sentencing guidelines scheme, under which courts were required to
impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court by
a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Sixth Amendment
because of its mandatory nature. 125 S. Ct. at 746 (Stevens, J.,
opinion of the Court). However, we find that because the
alternative sentence the district court pronounced (in the event
- 2 -
the federal sentencing guidelines were invalidated) was greater
than the mandatory sentence imposed under the federal sentencing
guidelines as they existed at the time, any error resulting from
the sentence imposed by the district court was harmless as to
Patterson, and the Government has waived any challenge by declining
to file a brief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Patterson’s conviction and sentence. Furthermore,
we deny Patterson’s request for the appointment of new counsel.
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. 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 -