UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4847
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAUHEEDAH RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-H)
Submitted: October 1, 2008 Decided: November 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Clarke Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne
Margaret Hayes, Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tauheedah Richardson was convicted of conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute fifty grams
of cocaine base, a quantity of cocaine and a quantity of marijuana.
On appeal, Richardson’s conviction was affirmed. Her sentence was
vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with the rule
announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See
United States v. Richardson, No. 03-4843, 2005 WL 859351 (4th Cir.
Apr. 15, 2005) (unpublished). On remand, the district court
imposed a downward variance and sentenced Richardson to 180 months’
imprisonment. The court “gave three reasons for imposing the
variance sentence: (1) Richardson’s ‘youthfulness’ at the time of
the criminal conduct; (2) her good character prior to becoming the
girlfriend of one of the principal members of the drug conspiracy;
and (3) her post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.” See United
States v. Richardson, No. 05-4817, 2007 WL 1413075, *1 (4th Cir.
May 11, 2007) (unpublished). The Government appealed, arguing that
the extraordinary variance was unreasonable. This court agreed and
vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court
stated that the “holding, however, does not deny the court
discretion to impose a variance sentence as appropriate to support
the sentencing factors found in § 3553(a).” See Richardson, 2007
WL 1413075, *3.
2
On remand, the district court imposed a downward
departure by moving Richardson from Criminal History Category II to
Category I. The court then imposed a variance and reduced her
total offense level from forty to thirty-seven. The advisory
Guidelines range of imprisonment was 210 to 262 months’
imprisonment. The court sentenced Richardson to 210 months’
imprisonment, the low end of the reconfigured Guidelines’ range of
imprisonment.
Richardson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there were no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court
plainly erred by sentencing Richardson to 210 months’ imprisonment.
Richardson was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not file one. The Government did not file a brief.
Finding no meritorious issues for appeal, we affirm.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007);
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When
sentencing a defendant, a district court must first properly
calculate the Guidelines range. The Guidelines is “the starting
point and the initial benchmark.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596. Next,
the court should give the parties the opportunity to argue for
whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The court is then
3
instructed to consider the § 3553(a) factors in light of the
parties’ requests with respect to the sentence. Pauley, 511 F.3d
at 473. In the Fourth Circuit, “[a] sentence within the proper
Sentencing 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
presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
Upon review, this court must first determine whether the
district court committed any significant procedural error, Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597, such as “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. If this court finds
the sentence is procedurally sound, it must next “consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at
597. This court should “take into account the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range,
the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a
presumption of reasonableness.” Id.
We find the sentence was reasonable and not an abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. In accordance with Anders, we
4
have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Richardson’s sentence.
This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If she requests a petition be filed, but counsel
believes 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 Richardson. 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