United States v. Washington ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4293
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY RENALD WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00421)
Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela Parrott, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Renald Washington pleaded guilty to possession of
materials transported in interstate commerce depicting minors in
sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2252A(a)(4)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to 120
months in prison to be followed by a lifetime term of supervised
release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether
Washington’s sentence--in particular, his term of supervised
release--is reasonable, but alleging no error by the district court
and concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Washington was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
This court will affirm a sentence that is within the
statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable
presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
Washington’s 120-month sentence was the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence because, as he acknowledged in his plea
- 2 -
agreement, Washington had “at least one prior conviction” relating
to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor.* Absent a government
motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000), the district
court lacked authority to sentence Washington below the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d
565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the life term of supervised
release was proper under both the applicable statute, see former 18
U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2000) (supervised release term for violation of
§ 2552A “is any term of years or life”), and guideline, see USSG
§ 5D1.2(c)(policy statement) (if sex offense committed, the
statutory maximum term of supervised release is recommended).
Accordingly, we find Washington’s sentence is presumptively
reasonable.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Washington’s conviction and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform her 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
*
Washington had prior state convictions for indecent liberties
with a child and second degree exploitation of a minor.
- 3 -
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 -