Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00221-TDS-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 2, 2012
PER CURIAM:
Dwight William Martin was originally sentenced to 160
months for: possession with intent to distribute Oxycodone, 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2006) (Count One); possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count Four);
and possession of a stolen firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(j) (2006)
(Count
Five).
district
We
court
vacated
for
the
sentence
consideration
of
and
the
remanded
impact
of
to
the
United
States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), on
Martins sentence.
United
States
resentenced
on
motion
the
to
dismiss
remaining
Count
two
Four.
counts
Martin
to
was
concurrent
with
appeals.
Anders
Counsel
v.
has
California,
filed
386
U.S.
brief
738
in
(1967),
Martin
We affirm.
I
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
Id.;
see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010).
We first decide whether the district court correctly calculated
the
defendants
U.S.C.
advisory
3553(a)
presented
by
Guidelines
(2006)
the
factors,
parties,
selected sentence.
and
considered
analyzed
the
sufficiently
the
18
arguments
explained
the
range,
procedural
error,
we
review
the
substantive
Id. at 577.
To establish
the
error
substantial
was
plain;
rights.
Id.
and
(3)
Even
the
if
error
these
affected
his
conditions
are
United States v.
Olano,
quotation
507
U.S.
725,
732
(1993)
(internal
marks
omitted).
For the drug offense, Martin was statutorily subject
to a supervised release term of at least three years.
3
See 21
in
effect
at
the
time,
the
Under the
recommended
term
of
conclude
that
the
three-year
term
of
supervised
It falls
The district
see
18
U.S.C.
presented
at
3583(c)
sentencing.
(2006),
as
The
court
well
as
the
sufficiently
See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
There was no plain error.
II
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm.
petition
be
filed,
but
counsel
If Martin requests
believes
that
such
Counsels motion
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED