UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4838
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS BLAKE SILER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-488)
Submitted: April 24, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG,* and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
*
Judge Luttig participated in the consideration of this case,
but his resignation from the court took effect on the date the
decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Blake Siler appeals from the 122-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute 20.6 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (2000), and use of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). Siler’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there
were no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the
reasonableness of Siler’s sentence. Siler filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel. Because our review of the
record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Siler’s conviction
and sentence.
Siler argues the district court’s imposition of a 122-
month sentence was unreasonable. We disagree. Siler admitted to
possession of 20.6 grams of cocaine base, thus triggering the five-
year mandatory minimum set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(2)(B)(iii)
(2000). Further, pleading guilty to use of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense resulted in the mandatory
application of a second five-year term, which was to run
consecutive to any other term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(I) (2000). Thus, the 122-month sentence is only two
months longer than the shortest term of imprisonment to which the
- 3 -
district court could have sentenced Siler. Accordingly, we find
the sentence is reasonable.
We have considered the claims raised by Siler in his
supplemental brief and find them without merit. The record reveals
no acts of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, and Siler’s
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are more
appropriately raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.
1999).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Siler’s guilty
plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing
pursuant to Rule 11. Siler was properly advised of his rights, the
offenses charged, and the maximum sentences for the offenses. The
court also determined that there was an independent factual basis
for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any
promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970);
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We
therefore affirm Siler’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
- 4 -
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 -