United States v. Deberry , 173 F. App'x 306 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4777
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TERRY LAMONT DEBERRY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CR-04-41-BO)
    Submitted:   March 3, 2006                 Decided:   April 4, 2006
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James M. Ayers, II, AYERS, HAIDT & TRABUCCO, PA, New Bern, North
    Carolina, for Appellant.   Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; John Howarth Bennett,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Terry Lamont Deberry pled guilty, without the benefit of a
    plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon and aiding
    and abetting the same criminal conduct, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 924, 2 (2000).          In July 2005, the district court
    sentenced     Deberry   to   120   months’   imprisonment,    the    statutory
    maximum term, which fell below the calculated range of imprisonment
    under   the    advisory      sentencing   guidelines.        See    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2) (2000).       Deberry’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
    to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), representing that, in
    his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal; however, he
    requests that this court review Deberry’s sentence.                Deberry was
    notified of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief,
    but declined to do so.
    First, we find no merit in counsel’s contention that, post-
    United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), the district court
    must make factual findings concerning the guideline calculation
    beyond a reasonable doubt.         See United States v. Dalton, 
    409 F.3d 1247
    , 1252 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Mares, 
    402 F.3d 511
    ,
    519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 43
     (2005); McReynolds v.
    United States, 
    397 F.3d 479
    , 481 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    125 S. Ct. 2559
     (2005).
    Deberry’s counsel also disputes the evidence supporting the
    district court’s factual findings.            At the sentencing hearing,
    - 2 -
    Deberry admitted his participation in an underlying offense of
    armed robbery.        The evidence in the presentence report indicated
    Deberry stole the automobile used in the robbery, and Deberry’s
    counsel acknowledges in his Anders brief that his client served as
    the   driver.         Pursuant     to   U.S.     Sentencing    Guidelines     Manual
    § 2K2.1(c)(1) (2004), which corresponds to the offense to which
    Deberry pled guilty, he was sentenced as a conspirator to the
    underlying offense of armed robbery.                Because the district court
    found the evidence supporting the specific offense characteristics
    executed       by   Deberry’s      co-conspirators       to    be   credible    and
    attributable to Deberry, we conclude that the district court did
    not err in its calculation of the applicable sentencing guideline
    range.     Further, we find this post-Booker sentence to be both
    reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range.                       United
    States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and
    find no meritorious issues for appeal.                  Accordingly, we affirm
    Deberry’s conviction and sentence.               In addition, we deny counsel’s
    motion    to    withdraw    from    further      representation.       This    court
    requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
    to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for further
    review.    If the client requests that the 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
    - 3 -
    representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4777

Citation Numbers: 173 F. App'x 306

Judges: Duncan, Hamilton, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/4/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023