United States v. Joiner , 251 F. App'x 263 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RUFUS ANTONIO JOINER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:06-cr-00059-MBS)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Chesser, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa
Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rufus Antonio Joiner pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Joiner was sentenced to 135 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 were no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but contending Joiner’s sentence is unreasonable
because it failed to take into account his personal characteristics
and is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000). Joiner was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected not
to file a responsive brief.
The district court appropriately calculated the advisory
guideline range and considered it in conjunction with other relevant
factors under the Guidelines and § 3553(a). See United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). Joiner’s 135-month sentence, which is at the lowest end
of the applicable guideline range and below the statutory maximum, is
therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007).
- 2 -
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 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 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -