United States v. McDaniel , 182 F. App'x 176 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARCUS JERMAINE MCDANIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-140-FWB)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 12, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John J. Korzen, Kernersville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Jermaine McDaniel pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base
(“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A),
846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2005). The district court sentenced
McDaniel to 240 months in prison. McDaniel timely appealed.
McDaniel’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court erred in sentencing McDaniel to 240
months in prison. McDaniel filed a pro se supplemental brief
challenging his sentence and asserting that his guilty plea was
involuntary. We affirm McDaniel’s conviction and sentence.
McDaniel and his counsel question whether the district
court erred in imposing a 240-month sentence. Under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), there is a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty
years and a maximum sentence of life in prison for convictions
involving fifty grams or more of crack when a defendant previously
has been convicted of a felony drug offense. McDaniel pled guilty
to conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of crack and the
government’s 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) information notified him of the
government’s intent to use one of his North Carolina felony drug
convictions to trigger the twenty-year statutory mandatory minimum
sentence. Thus, his mandatory minimum sentence was twenty years in
- 2 -
prison. McDaniel’s challenges to the determination of his
guideline range are meritless and, in any event, would not warrant
relief from his sentence because the district court departed below
the guideline range to sentence him to the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence.
McDaniel also challenges the district court’s failure to
impose a sentence below the statutory minimum sentence. However,
a district court may depart below a statutory mandatory minimum
term of imprisonment only if the government files a motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000). Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120,
128-30 (1996). No such motion was filed in this case; accordingly,
the district court lacked the authority to impose a sentence below
240 months.
Finally, McDaniel asserts that his guilty plea was
involuntary because he felt pressured into the plea by the fear of
a life sentence. However, McDaniel’s plea was not rendered
involuntary merely because it was influenced by his desire to avoid
a higher sentence. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 37-
38 (1970).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm McDaniel’s 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
- 3 -
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
- 4 -