UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5090
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL DEMETRIA BOSTIC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00373-RBH-3)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Frederic Marcinak, III, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Fisher,
Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Demetria Bostic pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court
imposed a 235-month sentence. Counsel for Bostic filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court fashioned a reasonable
sentence and whether it gave sufficient reasoning for its chosen
sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
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, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41.
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).
2
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Bostic, appropriately treating the
sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Bostic’s guidelines range was 210
to 262 months. The parties agreed on a sentence of 235 months,
which the court imposed. Bostic’s within-guidelines sentence
may be presumed reasonable by this court. Pauley, 511 F.3d at
473. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
Bostic filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that
he received ineffective assistance in guilty plea proceedings,
resulting in an invalid guilty plea, and received ineffective
assistance of counsel in failing to object to the drug amount
found for sentencing purposes. Bostic’s Fed R. Crim. P. 11
hearing was properly conducted and he did not raise any
objections related to the voluntariness of his plea. We may
address on direct appeal a claim that counsel was ineffective
only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively on the face of
the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th
Cir. 1991). On our review, no ineffective assistance appears
conclusively on the record.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Bostic, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bostic 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 Bostic.
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