UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN LEE PHELPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:04-cr-00607-GRA)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew R. MacKenzie, BARRETT MACKENZIE, L.L.C., Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven L. Phelps pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), one count of using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and one
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). The district
court sentenced Phelps to 262 months in prison. Counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
raising the issue of whether Phelps’ sentence was reasonable.
Although Phelps was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, he has not filed one.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court no longer is 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.A. § 3553(a) (West
2000 & Supp. 2006). Id. If the sentence imposed is within the
properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
- 2 -
Phelps’ sentence was within the guideline range of 262 to
327 months’ imprisonment, as well as the statutory maximum of life
in prison. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924. Because the district court
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly
calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant
§ 3353(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. Accordingly, we affirm Phelps’ convictions 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 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 -