United States v. CarterUnited States v. Carter
Case Information
*1 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2
PER CURIAM:
George Carter appeals from his conviction and fifty-seven
month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to use a firearm
in connection with a drug trafficking crime, in violation of
Carter’s first issue on appeal is whether the district
court failed to comply with the requirements of
After a thorough review of the record, we find that there
were no errors with respect to the
Carter next raises whether the district court’s denial of his request for a minor role downward adjustment was proper. We *4 review this claim for clear error. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989). A defendant who is only a “minor participant” in a criminal activity may have his offense level reduced by two levels. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3B1.2(b) (2005). This applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” USSG § 3B1.2(b), comment. (n.5).
The district court denied the request for a minor role adjustment on the grounds that Carter was a “key participant” in the conspiracy and that it would not have occurred without his involvement. Based on Agent Dean’s testimony and the findings in the presentence report, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Carter was not a minor participant. Carter served as the necessary middleman in this transaction, as he sought out the eventual purchaser and received compensation for his involvement in the exchange. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Carter’s conduct failed to warrant a minor role sentencing reduction.
Carter also questions whether the sentence imposed by the
district court was reasonable. After United States v. Booker , 543
U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. See United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). In a post-Booker
sentencing such as the one at issue, the district court must
*5
calculate the appropriate guidelines range, consider that range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and
quotation marks and citation omitted); see Rita v. United States,
In this case, Carter faced a maximum sentence of five years’ incarceration. Based on an offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of VI, the district court calculated the sentencing guidelines range to be 51 to 60 months. Carter’s sentence of 57 months’ incarceration was within the guidelines range and below the statutory maximum; therefore, Carter’s sentence is presumptively reasonable. The district court determined that Carter’s involvement in the instant offense was of a “very serious nature,” and, after taking the § 3553(a) factors into account, sentenced Carter in the middle of the guidelines range. Based on the district court’s correct calculation of the guidelines range and its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, we find that the sentence imposed by the court was reasonable.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Carter makes various
claims regarding the effectiveness of his trial counsel. However,
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in a
Carter also makes various charges of prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the Government lied to the court about its knowledge of the case, withheld exculpatory evidence and favorable testimony from numerous witnesses, and was biased and vindictive in its investigation and prosecution. However, Carter provides no evidence or elaboration to support these conclusory charges, nor does he give any explanation as to the nature of the allegedly exculpatory testimony and evidence. See United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 915 (4th Cir. 1997) (defendant must *7 demonstrate that undisclosed evidence was material and would have been favorable to his defense).
Finally, Carter contends that the district court violated his equal protection rights by failing to carry out its ministerial duties, erred in accepting his guilty plea before determining whether the § 924(c) violation was actually completed, and erroneously denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. As detailed previously, Carter was never charged with a violation of § 924(c); rather, the references to § 924(c) in the indictment and his hearings related to the object of the conspiracy rather than a separate offense. As for the district court’s denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing, Carter alleges that this “prevented an appropriate preparation for a trial.” However, Carter fails to explain why the district court erred in denying his request or how the court’s ruling prejudiced the preparation of his defense. Carter similarly alleges that the district court failed to carry out its “ministerial duties,” but again fails to provide any further explanation to support his claim. Finally, Carter’s guilty plea forecloses any attack on antecedent, non-jurisdictional errors. Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Therefore, we find Carter’s claims to be meritless.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Carter’s conviction and sentence. We deny counsel’s motion *8 to withdraw at this juncture. This court requires 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s 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
Notes
[*] In his pro se supplemental brief, Carter claims that he did
not understand the nature of the