UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5097
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMMIE LEE ROSEBOROUGH, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00613-JFA-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sammie Lee Roseborough, Jr., was convicted, after a
jury trial, on one count of distribution of crack cocaine. The
district court sentenced him to thirteen months imprisonment.
Roseborough’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the court erred by denying Roseborough’s
motion for judgment of acquittal and whether the sentence
imposed was reasonable. Roseborough was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal de novo. United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317
(4th Cir. 2008). Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, as we are required to do,
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find that
the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to determine
that Roseborough distributed crack cocaine. See United
States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). We do not
review the credibility of witnesses, but assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in favor of the Government. By the
guilty verdict, the jury implicitly found Roseborough’s alibi
2
defense not credible. Accordingly, we affirm Roseborough’s
conviction.
We have also reviewed Roseborough’s sentence and determined
that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed
was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.
2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Roseborough, appropriately treated the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and
considered the applicable Guidelines range, and weighed the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in light of
Roseborough’s individual circumstances. See United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Roseborough, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Roseborough requests that
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
3
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Roseborough. 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