UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAKEESHI SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00787-JMC-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2014 Decided: July 11, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lakeeshi Sims pled guilty without a plea agreement to
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012) (Count One), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2012) (Count Two). Sims was sentenced to time
served on Count One and sixty months, consecutive, on Count Two.
She now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and
whether the sentence is reasonable but concluding that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Sims has filed a pro se brief
raising additional issues. We affirm.
Our review of the Rule 11 transcript demonstrates that
the court substantially complied with the Rule. The court
failed to mention that it would consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) sentencing factors when it imposed sentence. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(M). Nonetheless, we hold that this minor
omission did not affect Sims’ substantial rights. See United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir. 2009).
With respect to Sims’ sentence, her properly
calculated Guidelines range for the drug offense was 0-6 months
(total offense level 8, criminal history category I). She was
additionally subject to a mandatory consecutive minimum term of
2
sixty months on Count Two. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A),
(D)(ii). In imposing sentence, the district court considered
Sims’ Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors
and the arguments of the parties and further provided an
individualized explanation of the selected sentence. See United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). We
conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We conclude additionally that the issues raised in
Sims’ pro se brief lack merit. Pursuant to Anders, we have
reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Sims, in
writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Sims 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 Sims. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3