UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRANDON MARQUETTE JOINER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:06-cr-0059-MBS-6)
Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquette Joiner pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Joiner was sentenced to 151
months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court erred in its application of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Joiner was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so, and the Government elected
not to file a responsive brief.
Counsel contends the district court erred in denying
Joiner a two-level decrease under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3E1.1 (2005). When reviewing the district court’s application of
the Sentencing Guidelines, we review findings of fact for clear
error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Green, 436
F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-
level decrease to the offense level if a defendant clearly
demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. In determining whether
a defendant qualifies for the decrease, the district court may
consider a variety of factors, including whether the defendant has
- 2 -
voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct or
associations. USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)). Because “[t]he
sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s
acceptance of responsibility,” his determinations are “entitled to
great deference on review.” Id. at comment. (n.5).
Testimony presented at sentencing established that Joiner
was involved in the distribution of a controlled substance
subsequent to the entry of his guilty plea. It was likewise
established that Joiner continued to reside in a home wherein
controlled substances and firearms were discovered. The court
found this testimony persuasive and concluded that Joiner was not
entitled to acceptance of responsibility because of his failure to
withdraw from criminal conduct and associations. As the district
court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, we conclude § 3E1.1
was properly applied.
Counsel additionally contends the district court erred in
its application of USSG § 5C1.2 (2005) (applying 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f) (2000) (“the safety valve”)). Joiner, who was provided
several opportunities to furnish the Government with information
and evidence concerning the conspiracy, failed to offer evidence
establishing truthful disclosure. See United States v. Beltran-
Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 669 (4th Cir. 1996) (recognizing burden rests
on defendant to prove prerequisites for application of the safety
valve provision have been met). The Government maintained Joiner
- 3 -
was untruthful during these debriefings and submitted investigation
reports memorializing the evolution of Joiner’s statements. Joiner
did not dispute the information contained in these reports. After
reviewing the reports and hearing extensive argument, the district
court ultimately concluded that Joiner was not entitled to
application of the safety valve because he failed to truthfully
disclose information and evidence regarding the conspiracy. Under
these circumstances, we conclude the district court appropriately
denied application of the safety valve.
As the district court properly calculated and considered
the advisory guideline range and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, we conclude Joiner’s 151-month sentence, which
is at the lowest end of the applicable guideline range and below
the statutory maximum, is reasonable. See Green, 436 F.3d at 457;
United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005); see
also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the 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 this court for leave to withdraw from
- 4 -
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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -