UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LIVINSON BRUMAIRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH)
Submitted: October 5, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Livinson Brumaire was convicted after a trial of one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty
grams of crack cocaine and five kilograms of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2007). On
appeal, we affirmed the conviction but remanded the sentence for
resentencing pursuant to the rules announced in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d
540 (4th Cir. 2005). The district court was instructed to consult
the guidelines and determine the appropriate guidelines range of
imprisonment. The court was then to consider the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) sentencing factors. If the
court imposed a sentence outside the guidelines, the court should
explain its reasons. The court was also instructed to impose a
reasonable sentence within the statutorily prescribed range of
imprisonment. The court imposed the same 292-month sentence. On
appeal, Brumaire’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but raising for the court’s consideration
whether the district court plainly erred in sentencing Brumaire to
292 months’ imprisonment. Brumaire filed a pro se supplemental
brief raising three issues concerning his sentence. The Government
did not file a brief. We affirm the sentence.
- 2 -
Our review of the record shows that the district court
properly determined the guidelines range of imprisonment,
considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence within the
guidelines. “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445
F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable
presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
Thus, we find no error at sentencing.
We find no merit to Brumaire’s arguments regarding the
sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and cocaine, the court’s
ability to find sentencing factors by a preponderance of the
evidence standard and Brumaire’s eligibility for an amendment to
the Sentencing Guidelines that is not effective as of yet.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Brumaire’s sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Brumaire, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If he
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 Brumaire.
- 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 -