UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4413
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ETOYI MONRAY BLOUNT, a/k/a E,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-31)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Adams, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Etoyi Monray Blount pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine,
more than five kilograms of cocaine, and more than 1000 kilograms
of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district
court imposed a 262-month sentence, the bottom of the advisory
sentencing guideline range. Blount’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting
that Blount’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment but stating
that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Blount was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel suggests that the district court violated
Blount’s Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing by applying the
guidelines in a mandatory fashion. After United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), courts must calculate the applicable guideline
range after making the appropriate findings of fact and consider
the range in conjunction with other relevant factors under the
guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007).
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will affirm a
post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed
range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “A sentence within the proper Sentencing
- 2 -
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines
sentence).
Here, the district court sentenced Blount in accordance
with Booker, properly calculating the guideline range,
appropriately treating the guidelines as advisory, and considering
the § 3553(a) factors. Blount’s 262-month sentence is the bottom
of the guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence
of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 &
Supp. 2007). Finally, neither Blount nor the record suggests any
information so compelling as to rebut the presumption that a
sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is
reasonable. We therefore conclude that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -