UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4702
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN CALVIN BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00223)
Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Andrew Jennings, LAW OFFICE OF W. ANDREW JENNINGS, Hickory,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Calvin Baker appeals from his 152-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during and
in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Baker’s attorney filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but
addressing the reasonableness of Baker’s sentence. Baker has filed
a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that there was insufficient
evidence to support the firearm conviction and that his sentence
was in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Our review of the record
discloses no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm Baker’s
convictions and sentence.
We find that Baker’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Baker was properly advised of his rights, the
offenses charged, and the mandatory minimum and 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).
In his supplemental brief, Baker argues that there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction for the firearm
- 2 -
offense. However, because Baker knowingly and voluntarily pled
guilty to that offense, the government was not required to present
evidence.
Although Baker pled guilty and admitted his offense
conduct, his sentence was not reduced for acceptance of
responsibility because, following his guilty plea, he violated the
terms of his release by leaving his residence without permission.
We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing
Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing factors before
imposing the 152-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.) (“[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated
[g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2309 (2006).
Baker’s pro se brief also asserts that his sentence is in
violation of the Sixth Amendment because the drug amount was not
found by a jury or stipulated by him. To the contrary, in his plea
agreement, Baker did stipulate to the amount of actual
methamphetamine from which his offense level was determined. The
district court properly determined Baker’s offense level and
correctly applied the resulting guideline range as advisory. See
- 3 -
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Accordingly, we
affirm Baker’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Baker’s 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 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 -