UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMARRIO DOBBS, a/k/a Sleepy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,
District Judge. (2:04-cr-00047-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louie Thompson Price, HOLROYD & YOST, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. John J. Frail, Erik S. Goes, Samuel D. Marsh,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamarrio Dobbs appeals his sentence for possession
with intent to distribute fifty or more grams of cocaine base,
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West Supp. 2008). The
district court initially sentenced Dobbs to 188 months’
imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release.
Dobbs subsequently moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006). The district
court granted the motion and resentenced Dobbs to the statutory
mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questions whether the district court erred by not imposing a
term less than the statutorily required minimum sentence.
Although advised of his right to do so, Dobbs has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
Possession of fifty or more grams of cocaine base with
the intent to distribute carries a mandatory 120-month minimum
sentence. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2006). The district
court did not have authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) to
impose a sentence below the statutory minimum because the
Government did not move for a downward departure to reflect
substantial assistance with law enforcement. Likewise, Dobbs
did not qualify for the safety valve provision, 18 U.S.C.
2
§ 3553(f) (2006). In sum, the district court was bound by the
mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).
See United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005)
(“[A] district court has no discretion to impose a sentence
outside the statutory range established by Congress for the
offense of conviction.”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Dobbs, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dobbs
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 Dobbs.
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