UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4969
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICKEY DWAYNE TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:02-cr-01051)
Submitted: August 26, 2008 Decided: October 14, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney W. Richey, RICHEY AND RICHEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mickey Dwayne Taylor pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent
to distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine and more
than fifty grams of a mixture containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine and a quantity of methylenedioxy-methamphetamine
(“MDMA”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000);
possession with intent to distribute a quantity of MDMA, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced
him to 360 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised
release, and a $300 special assessment. In Taylor’s first appeal,
we affirmed his convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded
for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. Taylor, 224 F. App’x 269 (4th
Cir. 2007) (No. 04-4247).
On remand, the Government did not present any evidence to
support an enhancement for Taylor’s role in the offense pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1 (2000), and the
parties agreed that a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months
applied. The district court granted the Government’s motion for a
downward departure for substantial assistance pursuant to USSG
§ 5K1.1 and sentenced Taylor to 211 months of imprisonment, five
2
years of supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. On
appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief in which he states there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the
district court erred in sentencing Taylor to 211 months of
imprisonment. Taylor was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. The Government
waived the filing of a brief on appeal. We affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for
procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007). The court considers the totality of the circumstances in
assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This
court presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go,
517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). In considering the
district court’s application of the Guidelines, this court reviews
factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006).
The district court correctly calculated Taylor’s
Guidelines range, which resulted from both the drug quantity
determination and Taylor’s status as a career offender, as each
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
3
yielded a base offense level of thirty-four. The court then
reduced its intended sentence of 235 months by twenty-four months
to reach its sentence of 211 months. Although counsel suggests
that Taylor should have received a greater reduction for his
assistance to authorities, he does not provide any specific reasons
for this assertion. Moreover, in explaining the Government’s
departure motion, the Assistant United States Attorney stated that,
although Taylor qualified for a departure, his cooperation was not
extensive. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Taylor’s sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Taylor’s sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Taylor
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 Taylor. 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