United States v. Harrell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4720
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHERMAN WAYNE HARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00041-BO)
Submitted: July 17, 2008 Decided: August 14, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Wayne Harrell pled guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Harrell was sentenced to 293
months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Harrell’s
classification as an armed career criminal is constitutional in
light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because it was
based on prior convictions that were not charged in the indictment
and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted. In
his pro se supplemental brief, Harrell contends his conviction in
federal court on a charge arising out of the same criminal conduct
on which he was charged and convicted in state court violates the
Double Jeopardy Clause. The Government filed a responding brief,
stating that while the issue raised by counsel on appeal falls
outside the scope of the appellate waiver provision in Harrell’s
plea agreement, it is nevertheless foreclosed by Circuit precedent.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
sentencing courts are still required to calculate the applicable
advisory guideline range based on appropriate findings of fact.
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). We
have previously noted that sentencing factors should continue to be
- 2 -
evaluated based on the preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, in
United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), we
specifically determined that prior convictions used as a basis for
enhancement under the ACCA need not be charged in the indictment
nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Harrell, appropriately treating the Sentencing
Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d
366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Harrell’s 293-month
sentence, which is no greater than either the Guidelines range or
the statutory maximum, may be presumed reasonable. See United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, we
conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
Additionally, we conclude Harrell’s conviction in federal
court arising out of the same criminal conduct on which he was
previously charged and convicted in state court does not violate
the Double Jeopardy Clause. “A central feature of double
jeopardy’s definition of offense is the ‘dual sovereignty
doctrine.’ Applying this doctrine, the Supreme Court has
- 3 -
continually held that federal and state crimes are not the same
offense, no matter how identical the conduct they proscribe.”
United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 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
- 4 -