UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4804
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN ERIC CAMPBELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-01040-TLW-2)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Eric Campbell pled guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine
and 280 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011) and 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and possession of firearms in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). Campbell received a departure sentence
of 120 months’ imprisonment. Counsel for Campbell has filed
this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal. Although advised of his right to do so, Campbell has
declined to file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government
has not filed a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
We have reviewed the transcript of Campbell’s Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing and conclude that Campbell’s guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in
fact. We thus affirm Campbell’s convictions.
We next consider the reasonableness of Campbell’s
sentence. When determining a sentence, the district court must
calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider
it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50
2
(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.
at 41.
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Campbell, appropriately treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable Guidelines range, granting the
Government’s motion for a sentence below the statutory mandatory
minimum, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006), and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court provided sufficient
reasoning for the departure sentence. Furthermore, the
departure sentence, which reflects a 33% reduction in the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence Campbell faced, * is
substantively reasonable. We thus conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence.
*
To the extent that Campbell may disagree with the extent
of the departure, this court does not have jurisdiction to
consider that claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2006); United
States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995). Even after
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court lacks
the authority to review a court’s decision to depart “unless the
court failed to understand its authority to do so.” United
States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). Clearly,
the court was aware of its authority to depart.
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires counsel inform Campbell, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Campbell requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Campbell. 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