Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4016
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00419-DKC-1)
Submitted:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
GREGORY
February 3, 2016
and
DIAZ,
Circuit
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Fred Yao Boadu of possession with intent
to
distribute
28
grams
841(a)(1)
(2012)
furtherance
of
or
(Count
drug
more
One),
of
cocaine
possession
trafficking
crime,
base,
of
18
21
U.S.C.
firearm
U.S.C.
in
924(c)
altered
Four);
and
serial
number,
possession
18
with
U.S.C.
intent
to
In
922(k)
(2012)
distribute
(Count
cocaine,
21
prison.
In
his
first
appeal,
Boadu
challenged
only
his
resentencing on the ground that Boadu did not qualify for the
career offender designation.
district
court
for
resentencing.
At
resentencing
in
December 2014, the district court noted that Boadu now had a
newly calculated lower advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, but
that he was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 180
months imprisonment, which Boadu received.
In this second appeal, Boadus attorney has filed a brief
pursuant
to
Anders
v.
California,
2
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
court
instruction;
erred
and
(4)
by
not
there
giving
was
fatal
reasonable
variance
doubt
in
the
working
jointly
on
his
case
under
Project
Exile
to file a response.
Counsels and Boadus pro se challenges to his convictions
are barred by the mandate rule.
v. Clark Mach. Co., 510 F.3d 474, 481 (4th Cir. 2007).
limiting
within
subsequent
the
scope
of
proceedings
the
to
appellate
only
those
courts
issues
mandate,
By
falling
the
rule
apple,
foreclosing
relitigation
of
issues
expressly
or
United States v.
Doe v. Chao,
waived
on
an
initial
appeal
is
not
remanded
to
the
Id.
within the scope of the appellate mandate, the mandate rule thus
holds that, where an argument could have been raised on an
initial appeal, it is inappropriate to consider that argument on
a
second
Columbia
(internal
challenge
appeal
Outdoor
following
Adver.,
quotation
his
remand.
974
marks
convictions
F.2d
Omni
502,
omitted).
in
his
Outdoor
505
(4th
Boadus
first
appeal
Adver.
Cir.
v.
1992)
failure
to
precludes
his
Id.
for
reasonableness,
applying
an
abuse
of
discretion
This
Id. at 51.
In
court
properly
calculated
the
applicable
advisory
an
appropriate
(2012)
sentence,
factors,
sentence.
and
considered
the
sufficiently
Id. at 49-51.
18
U.S.C.
explained
3553(a)
the
selected
United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421
(2014).
Such
presumption
can
only
be
rebutted
by
3553(a)
factors.
Id.
Here,
the
district
courts
We
conclude
that
Boadus
sentence
is
both
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
If
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
representation.
Counsels motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Boadu.
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED