UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEANTHONY MARCELLE SLIGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-133)
Submitted: September 12, 2005 Decided: September 28, 2005
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leanthony Marcelle Sligh pled guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of
possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2000). Sligh was sentenced to an
84-month term of imprisonment for Count One and a consecutive
60-month term for Count Two. We affirm the convictions and
sentence.
On appeal, Sligh’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the issue of
whether the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable.
Although Sligh was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he did not do so.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (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 applicable
guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000). Id. As stated in Hughes, we will affirm a
- 2 -
post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and within the
statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47.
Sligh’s 84-month sentence on Count One was both at the
lowest end of the guideline range and well below the statutory
maximum of forty years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The
imposition of a consecutive 60-month sentence on Count Two was
mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Furthermore, as the
district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory,
calculated and considered the guideline range, and weighed the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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 client requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move 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
- 3 -