UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAHIEE JERMAINE FLOWERS, a/k/a Munchie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2)
Submitted: October 28, 2011 Decided: November 7, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Michael Hisker, Duncan, South Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shahiee Jermaine Flowers appeals his 168-month
sentence imposed on remand following his jury conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006); three counts of possession with intent
to distribute and distribution of crack, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011); and
aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine
and crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(West Supp. 2011), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence. Flowers filed two pro se supplemental briefs, arguing
that (1) the Government improperly bolstered a confidential
informant’s credibility at trial; (2) the district court erred
in replacing a juror with an alternate without an explicit
finding that the juror was unable to perform or disqualified
from performing her duties as a juror; (3) the court
constructively amended the indictment; and (4) the court
violated his Sixth Amendment rights in sentencing him based on
an amount of crack greater than the amount for which the jury
found him responsible. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
2
Counsel for Flowers questions whether the district
court imposed a reasonable sentence. Because Flowers did not
request a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed
(which was a downward variance based on a one-to-one
crack-to-cocaine ratio), his sentence is reviewed for plain
error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th
Cir. 2010). Thus, Flowers “must show that an error (1) was
made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects
substantial rights.” Id. at 577. We must begin by reviewing
the sentence for significant procedural error, including such
errors as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there are no
significant procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that the district court did not commit
plain error in sentencing Flowers to 168 months’ imprisonment.
The district court varied below the applicable advisory
Guidelines range, and it is clear from the proceedings below
3
that the court considered both parties’ arguments and had “a
reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking
authority.” See United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 837
(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire
record and the issues raised by Flowers in his supplemental
briefs, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Flowers, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Flowers 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
Flowers. 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