UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4611
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIDNEY BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00643-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina;
Kevin Frank McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a plea agreement, Sidney Baker pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B)
(2006). He was sentenced to seventy-two months in prison.
Baker now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
the sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Baker was advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a
brief. We affirm.
Baker was held responsible for 58.51 grams of cocaine
base, for a base offense level of 30. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(5) (2007). His total offense level
was 30, his criminal history category was III, and his advisory
guideline range was 121-151 months. The United States moved for
downward departure based on Baker’s substantial assistance. See
USSG § 5K1.1. After hearing argument by counsel and testimony
from a detective about the specifics of Baker’s assistance, the
court concluded that Baker had provided significant assistance
to authorities in Virginia and North Carolina. The court granted
the Government’s motion, departed downward by five levels, and
sentenced Baker to seventy-two months in prison.
2
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness,
using the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). We conclude that Baker’s
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In
this regard, we note that the district court properly calculated
Baker’s guideline range, treated the Guidelines as advisory,
considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors,
and adequately explained its reasons for the fact and extent of
the downward departure. See id. at 597; United States v.
Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of
the motion 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
3