Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-4685
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00031-LHT-2)
Submitted:
February 7, 2011
Decided:
March 1, 2011
PER CURIAM:
Martineous
Leon
Hopper
pled
guilty,
pursuant
to
imprisonment,
Appellate
counsel
the
bottom
filed
of
brief
the
Guidelines
pursuant
to
range.
Anders
v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are
no
meritorious
district
issues
for
erred
in
court
convictions
for
assault
appeal
but
counting
with
questions
Hoppers
deadly
whether
prior
weapon
as
the
felony
separate
Finding no
error, we affirm.
Appellate review of a sentence, whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, is for
abuse of discretion.
(2007).
This
review
consideration
of
both
the
Id. at
597
F.3d
[s]ubstantive
212,
216
(4th
reasonableness
Cir.
examines
2010).
the
In
contrast,
totality
of
the
court
calculated
must
the
assess
advisory
whether
the
Guidelines
district
range,
Id.
court
considered
and
sufficiently
explained
the
selected
sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ([A]n individualized explanation
must accompany every sentence.); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Counsel
convictions
career
should
offender
sentencing.
charges
asserts
were
not
that
be
purposes
Hoppers
counted
because
as
they
prior
separate
were
assault
offenses
for
consolidated
for
by
an
intervening
arrest,
see
USSG
with
deadly
weapon
with
intent
to
inflict
serious
assault
with
deadly
weapon
found
that
with
intent
to
inflict
serious
Hoppers
prior
convictions
counted
as
the
4B1.2(c).
career
offender
guideline.
See
USSG
4B1.1(a),
discretion,
in
imposing
188-month
within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED