UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERNEST JETER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-248)
Submitted: December 9, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melissa J. Kimbrough, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Jeter appeals his conviction and sentence imposed
after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute at least 150 grams but less than 500 grams of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and
possession of a firearm in and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(2000). Counsel has
filed an Anders1 brief asserting that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Jeter was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief, but failed to do so. We requested
supplemental briefing on the issues contained in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and we have received responses from
both parties. Because we conclude that there was no reversible
error, we affirm Jeter’s conviction and sentence.
Our review of the record reveals that Jeter’s plea
colloquy was proper and conducted in accordance with the law, see
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1991).
We further find that Jeter’s plea was entered into knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily.
The district court applied no enhancements to Jeter’s
sentence, and Jeter was sentenced relative to a guidelines range
calculated directly based upon the facts explicitly admitted to by
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
him in his plea agreement.2 The district court concluded that
Jeter had substantially assisted the Government, and ultimately
sentenced Jeter well below the calculated guidelines range, to 135
months’ imprisonment.
Given that Jeter noted no objections to his sentence
below, we review on appeal any potential error in sentencing for
plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993);
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 2005). In
Hughes, we held that when a sentence calculated under the
Sentencing Guidelines exceeds the maximum sentence authorized by
facts found by the jury alone or admitted by the defendant, the
defendant could demonstrate plain error that warranted resentencing
under Booker. We find here that the district court did not commit
plain error in sentencing Jeter because the 135 month term of
imprisonment is not greater than that authorized by facts admitted
by him. The sentence imposed by the district court fell well below
the sentencing range authorized by the facts to which Jeter
admitted. Accordingly, Jeter’s Sixth Amendment rights were not
infringed by his sentence. Nor does the fact that Jeter was
sentenced under a mandatory guidelines scheme render his sentence
2
Specifically, in his plea agreement, Jeter stipulated to a
base offense level of thirty-four for purposes of sentencing.
After application of a three-level downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility, to an adjusted offense level of
thirty-one, and a criminal history category of IV, the attendant
guideline range was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 5, Pt. A, table (2001).
- 3 -
erroneous because there is no prejudice apparent on the record that
would demonstrate that the district court would have acted
differently under an advisory scheme. See United States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 216-17, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2005).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Jeter’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 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 -