United States v. Pulliam , 242 F. App'x 935 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4847
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY EDWARD PULLIAM, a/k/a Sleepy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00354-JAB)
Submitted: May 9, 2007 Decided: July 6, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael K. Troutman, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Anthony Edward Pulliam pled
guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (2000). The district
court granted the Government’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000) motion to
depart below the statutory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment
based on Pulliam’s substantial assistance. The court sentenced
Pulliam to 70 months’ imprisonment. Pulliam appealed.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but seeking review of Pulliam’s
sentence for unreasonableness. Pulliam did not file a pro se
supplemental brief despite being advised of his right to file a
brief. The Government elected not to file a responding brief. We
affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, sentencing courts are still required
to calculate and consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as
well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000
& Supp. 2006). Id. We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is
both reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id.
at 546-47; see also United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th
- 2 -
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006) (stating a sentence
imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is
presumptively reasonable).
Pulliam was sentenced below the statutorily prescribed
range, and his sentence falls within the properly calculated
guideline range of seventy to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment.
The district court appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines
as advisory and considered the guideline range in conjunction with
the § 3553(a) factors in imposing sentence. Thus, we conclude the
sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Pulliam’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Pulliam, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Pulliam 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 Pulliam.
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 -