United States v. Doctor , 409 F. App'x 615 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4943
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRENESIA S. DOCTOR, a/k/a Neenee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:07-cr-00302-DCN-1)
Submitted: December 10, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Trenesia S. Doctor appeals her conviction and the
eighty-eight month sentence imposed by the district court
following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty
grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Doctor’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly
denied Doctor’s request for a downward departure based on the
safety valve provision in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 5C1.2(a) (2007). Doctor was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We
affirm.
We review Doctor’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step
in this review requires us to ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error. United States v.
Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Significant
procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any
2
deviation from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at
51). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Doctor questions whether the district court properly
denied her request for a downward departure based on the safety
valve provision, USSG § 5C1.2(a). Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court correctly
determined that Doctor failed to establish that she had
satisfied all the requirements for application of the safety
valve.
We also conclude that the district court properly
reduced the required 120-month sentence by thirty-two months
pursuant to USSG §§ 5C1.3, 5K2.23 because Doctor had served a
state sentence of that length based on conduct that was included
as relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction. Thus,
we conclude that the district court properly calculated Doctor’s
guideline range. The eighty-eight month statutorily required
sentence that Doctor received is per se reasonable. See United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) (“A
statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable).
Therefore, Doctor’s sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 Doctor in writing of her
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Doctor 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 Doctor.
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