UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEAT SHAUN WINGATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00015-MJP-1)
Submitted: October 10, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley D. Ragsdale, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keat Shaun Wingate appeals his 240-month sentence imposed
by the district court following resentencing. Wingate pleaded
guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district
court originally sentenced Wingate to 262 months’ imprisonment,
based upon its mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines,
and its enhancement of Wingate’s base offense level based upon
facts found by a preponderance of the evidence by the court and not
charged in the indictment or admitted by Wingate, in violation of
the Supreme Court’s directive in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005), which case was decided after the original sentencing,
but before Wingate’s appeal. We affirmed Wingate’s conviction and
held that the district court correctly determined Wingate’s base
offense level, but vacated his sentence in light of Booker.
On remand, the district court sentenced Wingate to 135
months’ imprisonment, below the applicable mandatory statutory
minimum sentence. The Government appealed, contending that the
district court erred in sentencing Wingate below the twenty-year
statutory mandatory minimum sentence. We remanded the case again,
directing the district court to consider the application of the
mandatory minimum sentence, as well as the constitutional and
statutory sentencing mandates espoused in Booker. The district
- 2 -
court then imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240
months’ imprisonment, and a ten-year term of supervised release.
Wingate again appeals. His counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but again challenges
Wingate’s sentence. Wingate was given an opportunity to file a
supplemental pro se brief, but has not done so.
We find that the district court sentenced Wingate to the
240-month term of imprisonment following proper application of the
appropriate statutory and constitutionally mandated factors, after
consideration of the information and arguments presented to it in
the course of the sentencing hearings, and we further find that it
adequately explained its reasons for imposing a sentence at the
statutory mandatory minimum. The district court fully complied
with the mandates of Booker, and Wingate’s resulting sentence was
reasonable and not in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Wingate’s 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
- 3 -
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 -