United States v. Kevin Jackson , 446 F. App'x 616 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN LAMONT JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-00282-GRA-3)
Submitted: August 11, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Lamont Jackson appeals from the fifty-seven
month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. We
previously remanded this case for the district court to address
Jackson’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence and provide
individualized reasoning for the sentence imposed. On remand,
the court considered the parties’ arguments and again imposed a
fifty-seven month sentence.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court erred by failing to apply the Guidelines in
effect at the time of resentencing. The Government has declined
to file a brief, and Jackson has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Jackson asserts that the district court erred by not
applying the Guidelines in effect at the time of Jackson’s
resentencing. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g) (2006) explicitly
states that, when resentencing after appellate remand, a
district court should apply the sentencing guidelines “that were
in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the
defendant prior to the appeal.” See also United States v.
2
Bordon, 421 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
this claim is without merit.
Our review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no
meritorious claims. Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Jackson in writing of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jackson requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jackson. 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