UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAMORRIS WATSON, a/k/a O,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00220-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith M. Stroud,Sr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamorris Watson appeals from his 240-month sentence
following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess crack, cocaine,
and marijuana with the intent to distribute and possession of
cocaine with the intent to distribute. Watson’s attorney filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. Watson was advised
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done
so. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error;
accordingly, we affirm Watson’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Watson’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Watson 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 United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Watson argues that the sentence is unreasonable in light
of his substantial assistance to the government and the fact that
he has six children for which he provides support. We note that
the district court granted the government’s motion for a downward
departure from a mandatory life sentence to a sentencing range of
240 to 293 months based on Watson’s substantial assistance and
- 2 -
imposed sentence at the lowest point in that range. The district
court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the
relevant sentencing factors before imposing the 240-month sentence.
See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); United States
v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we
find that the sentence imposed—which was at the lowest point in the
properly calculated guideline range—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). Accordingly, we
affirm Watson’s sentence.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Watson’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 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 -