United States v. Matthews ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4508
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN GUNSIAN MATTHEWS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00293-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton B. Shoaf, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Justin Gunsian Matthews
pled guilty to possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). As
Matthews had previously pled guilty to possession of a firearm
during a drug trafficking crime, the district court imposed a
mandatory sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) (2006) of
300 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutive to any
undischarged sentence for his previous conviction.
Matthews’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging this
statutory sentence enhancement and alleging that, due to the
length and consecutive nature of the sentence, it constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Counsel states, however, that he has found no
meritorious grounds for appeal. We agree with his conclusion
and affirm. *
We review Matthews’s sentence for abuse of discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). We will
affirm a sentence imposed by the district court if it is within
the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United
*
Although Matthews was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
2
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). A
statutorily required sentence is deemed reasonable per se.
United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). As
a “conviction” for purposes of § 924(c)(1) “refers to the
finding of guilt by a judge or jury that necessarily precedes
the entry of a final judgment of conviction,” Deal v. United
States, 508 U.S. 129, 132 (1993), we find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by enhancing Matthews’s
sentence pursuant to § 924(c)(1)(C)(i).
Next, Matthews asserts that the length and consecutive
nature of his sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, this court
rejected the same argument in United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d
477, 495 (4th Cir. 2006), when we held that lengthy, mandatory
sentences imposed pursuant to the “count-stacking” provision of
§ 924(c) do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore,
Matthews’s contention is without merit.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Matthews’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Matthews, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Matthews requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
3
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 Matthews. 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