United States v. Raymond Leech

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

RAYMOND O. LEECH, a/k/a Neil,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00427-WDQ-2)

Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 23, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald C. Ruter, THE LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Raymond O. Leech appeals the 151-month sentence

imposed by the district court following this court’s remand for

resentencing. On appeal, Leech’s 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 the

reasonableness of the sentence. Leech filed a pro se

supplemental brief, in which he raises several challenges to his

conviction and sentence, including a challenge to the district

court’s determination of the quantity of drugs for which he was

held accountable for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Both Leech and his counsel question the reasonableness

of Leech’s sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must first

ensure that the district court did not commit any significant

procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the

applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the

sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once

we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing

Guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable. United States v.

2
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). This

presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we

conclude that the district court committed no procedural or

substantive error in sentencing Leech to 151 months’

imprisonment, a sentence within the applicable Sentencing

Guidelines range. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577

(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.

Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that

defendant’s stipulation to drug amounts prior to sentencing

waived right to appeal issue).

Turning to Leech’s remaining pro se issues, we

conclude that the district court permitted Leech to fully

allocute at the resentencing hearing, as was his right. United

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding

that defendant “ha[s] a renewed right to allocute at

resentencing”). Additionally, Leech is foreclosed from

challenging his conviction in this appeal, because we affirmed

his conviction in a prior proceeding and no exceptions exist

permitting Leech to now raise these foreclosed claims. See

United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)

(discussing mandate rule).

3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Leech, in writing, of his right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Leech 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

Leech. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED