United States v. Green , 172 F. App'x 538 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVAN BERNARD GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-66)
Submitted: December 28, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF WALTER H. PARAMORE, III,
P.C., Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret
Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Bernard Green was convicted by a jury on nine counts
of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting the same
conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 2 (2000). In February
2005, the district court sentenced Green to a total of seventy
months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the range provided by the
advisory sentencing guidelines. Green’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 whether the district
court imposed a sentence that was reasonable. Green was notified
of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
declined to do so.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546 (4th Cir. 2005). However, in determining a sentence post-
Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and
consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). Id. Post-Booker,
a sentence will be affirmed if it is both reasonable and within the
statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47. In addition, “while
we believe that the appropriate circumstances for imposing a
sentence outside the guideline range will depend on the facts of
- 2 -
individual cases, we have no reason to doubt that most sentences
will continue to fall within the applicable range.” United
States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir. 2005). Here, the
record indicates that the district court calculated and considered
both the guideline range and the § 3553(a) factors. On the record
before us, we conclude the sentence was reasonable.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Green’s conviction and sentence. 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 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 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 -