UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4784
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL LARELL ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 06-4793
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK RAY SIMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC)
Submitted: February 4, 2008 Decided: February 22, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William N. Nettles, SANDERS AND NETTLES, Columbia, South Carolina;
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina;
W. James Payne, POWELL & PAYNE, Shallotte, North Carolina, for
Appellants. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Larell Anderson pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy
and a charge of crack cocaine distribution, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841, and was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.
Patrick Ray Simpson pleaded guilty to using or carrying a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking offense and committing murder in
the course of the drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1), (2) and was sentenced to a term of 348 months.
Anderson and Simpson were associates of a drug dealer, Kenneth
Reid. On Reid’s behalf and at his bidding, Simpson, abetted by
Anderson, murdered an informant so that he would not be able to
testify against Reid. Both Anderson and Simpson eventually
cooperated with the Government and testified at Reid’s trial. On
appeal, counsel for Anderson and Simpson filed a joint Anders
brief,* concluding there are no meritorious issues for review but
raising the issue of whether their sentences are reasonable. After
a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
The district court granted the Government’s motions for
downward departures with respect to both Anderson and Simpson based
on their substantial assistance. Anderson, who had a guidelines
range of 324 to 400 months, was granted a two-level departure and
sentenced to 300 months. Simpson, who had a guidelines range of
360 months to life, was granted a three-level departure and
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 3 -
sentenced to 348 months. Counsel asserts that the court should
have departed further from the guidelines ranges. However, with
respect to both Appellants, the district court appropriately
treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated
and considered the advisory guidelines range, and weighed the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). A sentence that falls within
a properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumed to be
reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007).
We review all sentences, including those outside the advisory
guidelines range, for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 2007 WL 4292116, at *7, *13 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007)
(No. 06-7949).
Anderson’s 300-month sentence and Simpson’s 348-month
sentence were below the advisory guidelines ranges and well below
the statutory maximum sentences. The district court selected the
sentences upon concluding that departures were warranted because
the defendants did assist in the investigation and conviction of
Reid and ultimately told the truth about the events. However, the
court declined to further depart from the guidelines ranges in
recognition of the seriousness of the offenses committed, and in
Simpson’s case, based on his relative culpability. Simpson and
Anderson have failed to demonstrate their sentences are
unreasonable.
- 4 -
We have considered the issue raised in the supplemental
Anders brief submitted by Simpson’s new counsel and conclude it is
without merit. We have also considered the argument raised by
Anderson in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude it is
likewise unavailing.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we
affirm Anderson’s and Simpson’s convictions and sentences. This
court requires that each counsel inform his client, in writing, of
the 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
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
- 5 -