United States v. Gunter , 162 F. App'x 211 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-4718
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTONIO DEVON GUNTER,
    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-04-31)
    Submitted:   November 28, 2005            Decided:   January 3, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
    Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael
    Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Devon Gunter pled guilty to possession of a
    firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g),
    924(a)(2) (2000).      The district court sentenced him to forty-six
    months in prison.      Gunter’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that in his
    opinion     there   were    no   meritorious   issues   for   appeal,   but
    questioning whether Gunter’s sentence violated the Sixth Amendment
    because his sentence was enhanced based upon facts that were not
    charged in the indictment, admitted by Gunter, or proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt.          This court provided an opportunity for the
    parties to submit supplemental briefing concerning the potential
    impact of United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005).         Gunter’s
    counsel filed a supplemental brief stating that the district court
    erred by applying the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.
    Gunter has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief, but he has not filed one.       We affirm Gunter’s conviction and
    sentence.
    This court has identified two types of Booker error:          a
    violation of the Sixth Amendment, and a failure to treat the
    guidelines as advisory. United States v. Hughes, 
    401 F.3d 540
    , 552
    (4th Cir. 2005).     A Sixth Amendment error occurs when the district
    court imposes a sentence greater than the maximum permitted based
    on facts found by a         jury or admitted by the defendant.     Booker,
    125 S. Ct. at 756.     Because Gunter did not raise a Sixth Amendment
    challenge or object to the mandatory application of the guidelines
    - 2 -
    in the district court, review is for plain error.            Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 547
    .     To demonstrate plain error, an appellant must establish
    that an error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his
    substantial rights.      United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 731-32
    (1993); Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 547-48
    .             If an appellant meets these
    requirements, the court’s “discretion is appropriately exercised
    only when failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of
    justice, such as when the defendant is actually innocent or the
    error     seriously   affects     the    fairness,     integrity     or    public
    reputation of judicial proceedings.”                Hughes, 
    401 F.3d at 555
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Gunter    argues    that    his    sentence   violates   the    Sixth
    Amendment because his offense level was increased four levels under
    U.S.    Sentencing    Guidelines   Manual       §   2K2.1(b)(5)   (2003).      To
    determine the guideline range free of enhancements, this court uses
    the defendant’s “guideline range based on the facts he admitted
    before adjusting that range for acceptance of responsibility.”
    United States v. Evans, 
    416 F.3d 298
    , 300 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005).
    Assuming without deciding that Gunter did not admit the facts that
    gave rise to the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement, if that four-level
    enhancement is eliminated, as well as the three-level acceptance of
    responsibility adjustment under USSG § 3E1.1(b), Gunter’s guideline
    range (with offense level 20 and Criminal History Category II)
    would be thirty-seven to forty-six months.                 USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A
    (Sentencing Table).        Gunter’s sentence of forty-six months is
    - 3 -
    within this guideline range.           Therefore, we find that no Sixth
    Amendment violation occurred.       Evans, 
    416 F.3d at 300-01
    .
    Gunter also argues that the court erred by applying the
    sentencing    guidelines    as    mandatory.       While    the    mandatory
    application of the guidelines constitutes plain error, United
    States v. White, 
    405 F.3d 208
    , 216-17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___
    U.S. ___, 
    2005 WL 3027841
     (Nov. 14, 2005), a defendant who seeks
    resentencing on this ground must show actual prejudice, i.e., a
    “nonspeculative basis for concluding that the treatment of the
    guidelines as mandatory ‘affect[ed] the district court’s selection
    of the sentence imposed.’”       
    Id. at 223
     (quoting Williams v. United
    States, 
    503 U.S. 193
    , 203 (1992)).            Gunter failed to provide a
    nonspeculative basis for suggesting that the court would have
    sentenced    him   differently   had    the   guidelines   been   considered
    advisory instead of mandatory.         We therefore find that the error
    did not affect Gunter’s substantial rights.           White, 
    405 F.3d at 225
    ; see also United States v. Collins, 
    412 F.3d 515
    , 524-25 (4th
    Cir. 2005) (finding that defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice
    from being sentenced under the mandatory sentencing guidelines).
    Accordingly, Gunter is not entitled to resentencing on this basis.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.     We therefore affirm Gunter’s conviction and sentence.
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied.          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
    - 4 -
    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
    - 5 -