UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON ANDRE PETERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00047-BO-1)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Cannon, III, CANNON LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Greenville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Andre Peters pled guilty without benefit of a
written plea agreement to distribution of more than five grams
of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)
(2006). The district court imposed a 262-month sentence.
Peters timely appealed.
Counsel for Peters has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the
issues suggested by Peters that he was prejudiced by the
Government’s refusal to permit him to cooperate with authorities
in an effort to reduce his sentence after he learned that the 21
U.S.C. § 851 (2006) information would increase his Guidelines
range, that the court should have granted a downward variance
because the Guidelines sentence over-represented the seriousness
of Peters’ record, and a sentence less than 262 months would
have been appropriate in light of Peters’ age of 32, the lack of
offense-related violence, and family issues. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596
(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
2
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 591. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be
presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Peters, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Although Peters alleged that, had
he known of the full effect of the 18 U.S.C. § 851 information
filed against him, he would have cooperated, there was no error.
Peters was afforded the opportunity to cooperate with the
Government and admittedly chose not to in a timely manner. Only
upon learning that the bottom of his Guidelines range would
increase from 188 to 262 months did he attempt to cooperate.
Peters was aware that the Government filed a § 851 information
at the time of his arraignment.
We have considered Peters’ arguments that his sentence
was not reasonable because it overrepresented the seriousness of
his past criminal activity and that it should have been lower
based on his age, lack of offense related violence, and
obligations for the care of several children and other family
3
members, and conclude that the sentence the district court
imposed was not an abuse of discretion.
We have reviewed Peters’ pro se supplemental brief and
find no merit in his claims regarding the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, § 851 procedures, and whether the district court was
required to elicit specific objections after imposing the
sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Peters’ conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Peters, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Peters 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 Peters.
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