UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4732
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE R. SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge
(2:07-cr-00924-DCN-l1)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Wells Dickson, WELLS DICKSON, P.A., Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie R. Scott appeals his conviction and 132-month
sentence for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and distribution of more than 500 grams
of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 2000 & Supp.
2009). In January 2008, Scott entered into a plea agreement
regarding both counts, in which he agreed to cooperate with the
Government in exchange for a motion for downward departure
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5K1.1
(2007). He stipulated that he was subject to a mandatory
minimum term of twenty years’ imprisonment, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. § 851 (2006), because he had a prior felony drug
conviction. Scott did not object to the sentencing
recommendations in the Presentence Investigation Report, and the
district court granted the Government’s motion for downward
departure at his sentencing hearing.
Scott’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel,
however, asks this court to review whether Scott waived his
objections to the indictment by pleading guilty, whether the
court may review the extent of the downward departure Scott
received, whether the district court erred in sentencing him as
2
a career offender, and whether the court erred in imposing a
more severe sentence than the sentences given to Scott’s co-
defendants. Scott has filed a pro se supplemental brief in
which he argues that he was not adequately advised regarding his
sentence before pleading guilty, he should have received a
lesser sentence because he provided substantial assistance, he
was held accountable for a higher amount of drugs than he was
actually responsible for, he was sentenced too harshly in
relation to his co-defendants, and he was improperly charged
with distribution of cocaine as well as conspiracy.
I.
A counseled guilty plea waives all antecedent
nonjurisdictional defects not logically inconsistent with the
establishment of guilt, unless the petitioner can show that his
plea was not voluntary and intelligent because the advice of
counsel “was not within the range of competence demanded of
attorneys in criminal cases.” Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.
258, 266-67 (1973) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Here, the district court conducted an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing and Scott entered a voluntary and intelligent guilty
plea, despite his contention that he expected to receive a
greater downward departure for substantial assistance. Scott
indicated at the hearing that he understood how the guidelines
3
and statutory mandatory minimums might affect his sentence and
that he waived his right to appeal his sentence if it was higher
than he expected. Accordingly, his guilty plea waived any
objections he might have made to the indictment.
II.
Because Scott did not raise the sentencing assertions
he makes on appeal as objections, we review them for plain
error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993).
To establish plain error, Scott is required to show that an
error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his
substantial rights. See id. at 732. Mere dissatisfaction with
the extent of a district court’s downward departure does not
provide a basis for appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006).
United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995). Even
after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), we lack the authority to review a
sentencing court’s decision to depart “unless the court failed
to understand its authority to do so.” United States v. Brewer,
520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). Because the record
demonstrates that the district court understood its authority to
depart, Scott’s claim that he received an inadequate downward
departure lacks merit.
4
III.
Because Scott stipulated in his plea agreement that he
was subject to a mandatory minimum term of twenty years’
imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, on account of his
prior federal felony drug conviction, his claim that he was
erroneously sentenced under that provision also lacks merit.
IV.
Scott did not raise the treatment of his co-defendants
as an objection at his sentencing hearing, and there is no plain
error in any disparity between the sentences of Scott and his
co-defendants. In particular, as the district court noted,
Scott had recently been released from federal prison for a
previous drug trafficking offense when he was arrested and
charged in this case, a consideration that weighed heavily when
the district court was fashioning its sentence.
V.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, affording particular attention to the claims
raised by Scott in his pro se supplemental brief, and have found
no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Scott’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Scott, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
5
Court of the United States for further review. If Scott
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 Scott.
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
6