UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4439
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK CHARLES THORPE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:05-cr-00707)
Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott D. Robinson, Pickens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Charles Thorpe appeals his conviction and
sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A) (2000). Thorpe’s attorney on appeal has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Thorpe’s sentence was reasonable. Thorpe was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel questions the reasonableness of Thorpe’s
sentence. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
sentencing guidelines, but still must calculate and consider the
guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2000). See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546
(4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it is
both reasonable and within the statutorily prescribed range. Id.
In the presentence report, Thorpe’s base offense level
was determined to be 32. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”), § 2D1.1(c)(4) (2005). However, because Thorpe was
determined to be a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1, his offense
level was enhanced to 37. After he received a three-level
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, Thorpe had a total
- 2 -
offense level of 34. With an offense level of 34 and career
offender criminal history category VI, his advisory guidelines
range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. There were no
objections to the presentence report. The Government filed a
motion for downward departure under USSG § 5K1.1, based on
substantial assistance. The district court granted the motion,
departed below the advisory guidelines range, and sentenced Thorpe
to 180 months in prison, which was within the statutorily
prescribed range of ten years to life imprisonment. The district
court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, considered
the guideline range and the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion for
downward departure, and weighed the relevant factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) in imposing Thorpe’s sentence. We
therefore find Thorpe’s sentence is reasonable and within the
statutorily prescribed range.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Thorpe’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
- 3 -
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 -