UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4426
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAKING FISHER, a/k/a Shy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00424-CCE-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaking Fisher pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
Count 1 of his indictment, distributing cocaine base (“crack”),
and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. On appeal,
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but raising the following issue: whether Fisher’s
sentence was reasonable. Fisher was informed of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but has failed to do so. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–Santana,
668 F.3d 95, 100-01 (4th Cir. 2012). The district court
properly calculated Fisher’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range, discussed some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
and explained why it imposed a sentence below the Guidelines
range but above what Fisher had sought. Thus, we find that
Fisher’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th Cir.
2009).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Fisher’s conviction and sentence. This court
2
requires that counsel inform Fisher, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Fisher 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 Fisher. 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