United States v. Roosevelt Cooper , 651 F. App'x 232 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4536
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROOSEVELT ALONZO COOPER, a/k/a Zo, a/k/a Chico,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00607-JFA-3)
Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 9, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
T. Micah Leddy, LEDDY LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roosevelt Alonzo Cooper appeals his sentence of 120 months
of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the
reasonableness of Cooper’s sentence. We affirm.
We review Cooper’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.
McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate
consideration of both its procedural and its substantive
reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “A statutorily required
sentence . . . is per se reasonable . . . .” United States v.
Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other
grounds by Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court
properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties
an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence not based
on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the
2
chosen sentence. Furthermore, Cooper’s sentence of 120 months
is at the statutory minimum. Therefore, we conclude that
Cooper’s sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Cooper’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Cooper, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cooper 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 Cooper.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3