UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4631
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE LORENZO BAILEY, a/k/a Yellow,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00472-PMD-2)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 6, 2014
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Brown, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JIM BROWN, P.A., Beaufort,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Nathan S.
Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lorenzo Bailey pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin, cocaine
base, and marijuana, and conspiracy to maintain a premises for
the purpose of manufacturing and distributing a quantity of
controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), 846, 856(a)(l) (2012) (Count One); four counts of
possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012) (Counts Six, Fourteen,
Fifteen and Sixteen); and seven counts of use of a communication
device to facilitate a controlled substance offense, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (2012) (Counts Twenty-Four,
Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Three,
and Thirty-Four). The district court sentenced Bailey to a
total of 264 months’ imprisonment, below the bottom of his
advisory Guidelines range.
Counsel for Bailey has filed this appeal pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but arguing that his
sentence is procedurally unreasonable. Specifically, counsel
questions the district court’s calculation of the base offense
level, specific offense characteristics, and Bailey’s role in
the offense. Bailey was advised of his right to file a pro se
2
supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has not
submitted a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for
reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.
2012); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007).
When determining a sentence, the district court must first
calculate the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. Gall, 552
U.S. at 49–50. “In assessing the district court’s calculation
of the Guidelines range, we review its legal conclusions de novo
and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v.
Cox, 744 F.3d 305, 308 (4th Cir. 2014).
Bailey did not object to any aspect of the sentencing
calculus, so our review is limited to plain error. See United
States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3d 404, 410 (4th Cir. 2012), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 1838 (2013). “To establish plain error, the
appealing party must show that an error (1) was made, (2) is
plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial
rights.” United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.
2010).
The record contains sufficient evidence to support
Bailey’s base offense level, as well as the increases for
3
possession of a firearm and maintenance of a drug premises, as
well as his leadership role in the offense. Therefore, the
district court’s Guidelines calculation contains no error, and
certainly no plain error. Consequently, Bailey’s claims are
meritless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Bailey’s convictions and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Bailey, in writing, of his right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Bailey requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bailey. 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
4