Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. McKoy, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Filed: 2006-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4340

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. McKoy, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    Filed: 2006-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4340

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Filed: 2006-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4340

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    United States v. McKoy, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Filed: 2006-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4340

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-4340

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN GREGORY MCKOY, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (7:05-cr-253-HMH)

    Submitted: December 14, 2006

    Decided:

    December 19, 2006

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South


    Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John Gregory McKoy, Jr., appeals his sentence imposed for
    possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
    and cocaine base and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug
    trafficking offense after pleading guilty. Counsel has filed an
    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), brief and McKoy has not
    filed a pro se supplemental brief.
    file a reply brief.

    The Government elected not to

    Counsel raises issues of whether McKoys

    sentence was reasonable.

    We affirm.

    This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for


    reasonableness.

    United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61

    (2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.
    2005).

    After

    Booker,

    courts

    must

    calculate

    the

    appropriate

    guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings.


    States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006).

    United

    The court

    then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in


    conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000
    & Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence.

    Davenport,

    445 F.3d at 370. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated


    guideline range is presumptively reasonable.

    United States v.

    Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309
    (2006).

    Because the district court adequately explained the basis

    for its sentencing decision, taking into consideration McKoys


    arguments, we conclude that the resulting 180-month sentence was

    - 2 -

    reasonable.

    See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380

    (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S.
    July 21, 2006) (No. 06-5439); Green, 436 F.3d at 457.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We therefore affirm McKoys convictions and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of


    his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.

    If the client requests that a petition be filed,

    but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then


    counsel

    may

    move

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof

    was served on the client.


    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like