UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4352
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROSCOE MCPHATTER, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00198-TLW)
Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roscoe McPhatter appeals from his 216-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and
to possess with intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine.
McPhatter’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the validity of
McPhatter’s plea and sentence. McPhatter has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, arguing that his sentence was based on a
greater drug quantity than that to which he admitted. Because our
review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that McPhatter’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. McPhatter was properly advised of his rights, the
offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences
for the offense. 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).
McPhatter contends that his sentencing exposure should be
limited to the 1.5 kilograms of cocaine powder that he admitted to
in his statements to the government. However, during the plea
hearing, McPhatter was fully advised that other drug amounts could
- 2 -
be considered at sentencing as relevant conduct and could increase
his sentence. McPhatter acknowledged his understanding of the
relevant conduct provisions and expressed his desire to continue in
his guilty plea. We find that the additional drug amounts were
properly considered by the district court in determining
McPhatter’s guideline range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.3 (2004).
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 216-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
the sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence imposed within
the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm McPhatter’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm McPhatter’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
- 3 -
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 -