UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYREE MAURICE BLANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-03-388)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 26, 2006
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William I. Diggs, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyree Maurice Blanks appeals his life sentence that was
imposed following his plea of guilty to two counts of a four-count
superseding indictment: possession and intent to distribute a
quantity of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000) (“Count Two”), and possession and
use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and in
the course thereof, causing the death of Joel Briggs, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)(1) (2000) (“Count Three”). Blanks’
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), arguing that Blanks’ sentence was unreasonable in light
of his age and immaturity, and that the district court erred in
accepting Blanks’ guilty plea. Blanks filed a pro se brief arguing
that the district court’s acceptance of his plea was improper, and
that the sentencing court violated his Sixth Amendment rights as
announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by
imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based
on judicially-determined facts. We affirm.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005). In determining a sentence post-Booker, however,
sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the
Guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the factors set forth
- 2 -
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). Id. As stated in Hughes, this court
will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is both reasonable and
within the statutorily prescribed range. Id. at 546-47.
This court has further stated that “while we believe that
the appropriate circumstances for imposing a sentence outside the
Guideline range will depend on the facts of individual cases, we
have no reason to doubt that most sentences will continue to fall
within the applicable Guideline range.” United States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 2005 WL 3027841 (U.S.
Nov. 14, 2005) (No. 05-6981).
The court sentenced Blanks only after considering and
examining the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). At sentencing, Blanks
stated that he did not dispute the facts underlying the obstruction
of justice enhancement. The district court correctly determined
the Guideline range and appropriately treated the Guidelines as
advisory. Because the court sentenced Blanks within the applicable
Guideline range and the statutory maximum, and no compelling reason
has been advanced to demonstrate that the Guideline range was
inappropriate, we find that Blanks’ sentence of life imprisonment
is reasonable. It is further clear that the district court’s
imposition of a life sentence upon Blanks fully comported with all
Booker requirements.
- 3 -
The remaining claims raised by Blanks and his attorney
are similarly without merit. First, the district court did not err
in accepting Blanks’ guilty plea despite the absence of one of his
two attorneys from the proceeding because Blanks plainly waived the
presence of his second attorney. Blanks’ contention that his
guilty plea should not have been accepted fails because the plea
hearing demonstrates there was an ample factual basis presented as
to all statutory elements. Finally, contrary to Blanks’
contention, the statutes implicated in Count Three are plainly
substantive offenses and not merely “penalty” statutes.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Blanks’ 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 -