United States v. Baker , 231 F. App'x 290 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4492
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ULYSEE BAKER, JR., a/k/a Ulysee Baker, a/k/a
Bake,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00115-JBF-6)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: July 5, 2007
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William B. Cummings, WILLIAM B. CUMMINGS, P.C., Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ulysee Baker, Jr. was convicted by a jury of one count of
conspiracy to obstruct, delay and affect commerce by robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000), one count of interstate
transportation of stolen property conspiracy in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2000), and one count of money laundering conspiracy
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2000). The district court
sentenced Baker to 336 months in prison, three years of supervised
release upon his release from prison, and ordered Baker to pay
$6,271,791.14 in restitution. Finding no error, we affirm.
Counsel for Baker has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that he has found no
meritorious issues for appeal, but stating that Baker wishes to
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence brought against him at
trial, and the reasonableness of his sentence with respect to the
factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) and in light of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Baker was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
The Government declined to file a responding brief.
A review of the record reveals the Government produced
ample evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could
conclude Baker’s guilt of the crimes with which he was charged.
Additionally, we find Baker’s sentence is reasonable because a
sentence imposed “within the properly calculated Guidelines range
- 2 -
. . . is presumptively reasonable,” and there is no evidence to
rebut the presumption in this case. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
The district court appropriately treated the guidelines as
advisory, considered the guidelines range, and weighed all of the
relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, we find
Baker’s sentence as ordered by the district court is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
review. We therefore affirm Baker’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform his 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 renew in this court his motion for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy
thereof was served on the 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
- 3 -