United States v. Edward Patterson , 533 F. App'x 331 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4932
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
EDWARD JUNIOR PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-4933
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRYL BOOKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00258-MOC-DSC-1; 3:11-cr-00258-MOC-
DSC-2)
Submitted: July 15, 2013 Decided: July 19, 2013
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Darwin Snow, THE SNOW LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina; Scott Hadden Gsell, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellants. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Anne Magee Tompkins, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Patterson and Darryl Booker, co-conspirators in
a scheme to rob a drug house, appeal their sentences. Their
counsel have filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues
for review but questioning whether: (1) Patterson’s sentence was
substantively reasonable; (2) the district court erred by
applying a United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1 (2011)
leadership enhancement against Patterson; and (3) the district
court erred by running Booker’s sentences consecutively.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th
Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for
significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When
considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we
take into account the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
3
If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on
appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 346–56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Patterson questions whether the district court gave
sufficient reasons for his sentence, and whether the district
court erred by applying a two-point leadership enhancement to
his sentence. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the
district court gave sufficient reasons for Patterson’s sentence
and did not err when it imposed a leadership enhancement. With
regard to Booker’s sentence, we conclude that 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006) compelled that his sentences run
consecutively. Therefore, the district court did not err when
it imposed either sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Patterson and Booker’s convictions and
sentences. This court requires that counsel inform Patterson
and Booker, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Patterson or
Booker 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.
4
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
the relevant Defendant.
Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
material before this court and argument will not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5