UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4517
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY E. MOLLOHAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00134)
Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: March 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Ernest Skaggs, SKAGGS & SKAGGS, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey E. Mollohan appeals following his guilty plea and
the imposition of a 120-month sentence for knowingly and
intentionally possessing a quantity of pseudoephedrine, knowing and
having reason to believe it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)(2000).
Mollohan’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion by not imposing the minimum
guideline sentence. The Government did not file a reply brief, and
although advised of his right to do so, Mollohan did not file a pro
se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Mollohan contends that the district court committed
reversible error by not imposing the minimum guidelines sentence of
100 months. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
district court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines. However, in imposing a sentence
post-Booker, courts still must calculate the applicable guidelines
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and § 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,
432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court
will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily
- 2 -
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the
proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court sentenced Mollohan post-Booker
and appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory. The court
sentenced Mollohan after considering and examining the sentencing
guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker.
Mollohan’s 120-month sentence is within the advisory guidelines
range, and it is below the statutory maximum of twenty years.
Finally, neither Mollohan nor the record suggests any information
so compelling as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within
the properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Mollohan’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Mollohan, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Mollohan 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 Mollohan.
- 3 -
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 -