United States v. Gordon , 242 F. App'x 950 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5139
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEROME MAURICE GORDON, a/k/a Richie, a/k/a
Lance Fitzgerald Stewart,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:00-
cr-00253-PJM-1)
Submitted: September 7, 2007 Decided: September 24, 2007
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy J. Sullivan, BRENNAN, SULLIVAN & MCKENNA, LLP, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Steven M. Dunne, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerome Maurice Gordon appeals the 188-month sentence
imposed on remand based on his prior guilty plea to one count of
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
1000 or more kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii), 846 (2000). In our earlier decision,
we vacated Gordon’s sentence and remanded for resentencing
consistent with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
United States v. Gordon, 174 F. App’x 744 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 03-
4083).
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the district
court erred by failing to impose a variance sentence based on
Gordon’s post-incarceration vocational training and education. In
a pro se supplemental brief, Gordon asserts that the determination
of his Guidelines* range violated his constitutional rights, that
the district court erred in failing to properly consider and weigh
the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) factors, and
that the sentence imposed violates this court’s directions on
remand and is not reasonable. Gordon does not challenge the
accuracy of the district court’s factual findings and resultant
*
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) (2002).
- 2 -
Guidelines determinations. The Government declined to file a brief.
At the resentencing hearing, Gordon acknowledged that the
Guidelines range was properly calculated. The district court
explicitly treated the Guidelines as advisory, and sentenced Gordon
after considering the Guidelines range, the § 3553(a) factors, and
counsel’s arguments. Moreover, the district court thoroughly
discussed the § 3553(a) factors. Thus, we conclude that Gordon’s
sentence, which is within the statutory maximum and the Guidelines
range, is reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341
(4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.
Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We have
reviewed the arguments advanced in Gordon’s pro se brief and find
them to be without merit. We therefore affirm Gordon’s sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Gordon, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Gordon 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 Gordon.
- 3 -
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 -