United States v. Linyard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL L. LINYARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:03-cr-00620-SB)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francis J. Cornely, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl L. Linyard was found guilty by a jury of conspiring
to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base “crack” (Count 1), distributing fifty grams
or more of crack (Count 3), and possessing with intent to
distribute a quantity of crack (Counts 6-10, 13, 14). The district
court adopted the recommendations in the presentence report and
sentenced Linyard to a term of life imprisonment for Counts 1 and
3 and to concurrent sentences of 360 months for the remaining
counts.
On appeal, we affirmed Linyard’s convictions, but vacated
and remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 552
(4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Linyard, No. 04-5063 (4th
Cir. Nov. 7, 2005) (unpublished). On remand, the district court
expressly referred to various 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2006) factors, reduced Linyard’s life sentences to 400 months
of imprisonment for Counts 1 and 3, and reimposed 360-month
concurrent sentences for the remaining counts.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no
meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue:
whether the district court erred by sentencing Linyard below his
- 2 -
advisory guideline range without giving a sufficient explanation
for the sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We find that the district court acted reasonably in
deciding to sentence Linyard below his advisory guideline range of
life for Counts 1 and 3. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,
433-34 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006) (regarding
variance sentence); United States v. Hairston, 96 F.3d 102, 106 (4th
Cir. 1996) (regarding departure sentence). The district court
adequately explained its reasons for imposing Linyard’s reduced
sentences. Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, including the issues
raised in Linyard’s pro se supplemental brief, and find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 move in this court 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 -