UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4053
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALONZO LEE JOHNSON, a/k/a Lil Zo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-6)
Submitted: August 30, 2010 Decided: September 10, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Lee Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846
(2006). The district court sentenced Johnson within the
advisory Guidelines range to 160 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning the voluntariness of Johnson’s plea
and whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Johnson filed
a pro se supplemental brief raising the same issues and arguing
that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the
sentencing disparities involving cocaine powder and cocaine
base. Finding no error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court substantially complied with the requirements of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensured that Johnson’s plea was knowing
and voluntary. We also conclude that the district court imposed
a sentence that is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (review of
sentence is for abuse of discretion).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We have considered the claims asserted in Johnson’s pro
2
se supplemental brief and conclude they are without merit. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We also deny
Johnson’s motion for substitution of counsel and to place this
appeal in abeyance.
This court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Johnson requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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 Johnson.
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