Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 08-5119
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cr-00213-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Jermoll Burt pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty kilograms or more
of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006).
district
court
calculated
Burts
advisory
The
Guidelines
at
seventy-eight
to
ninety-seven
months
imprisonment,
with
v.
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
noting
no
brief and does not seek to enforce the plea agreements appeal
waiver. *
his
pre-sentencing
Therefore,
States v.
our
motion
review
Ubakanma,
215
is
to
for
F.3d
withdraw
abuse
421,
of
424
his
guilty
discretion.
(4th
Cir.
plea.
United
2000).
We
that
States
Lambey,
v.
Critically,
the
the
Rule
974
11
hearing
F.2d
transcript
1389,
reveals
was
1394
that
adequate.
United
(4th
1992).
the
Cir.
district
court
was
adequate
and
that
Burt
failed
to
overcome
the
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
denying
the
931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991) (listing factors to consider
when addressing motion to withdraw plea).
Turning
to
Burts
sentence,
we
review
States,
correctly
argument
552
U.S.
calculated
from
allocution
from
the
the
38,
(2007).
advisory
parties
Burt.
51
The
on
Guidelines
the
court
The
range
the
for
Gall v.
district
appropriate
considered
it
and
court
heard
sentence
relevant
and
18
and
circumstances
characteristics,
Burts
of
the
request
3
offense,
for
Burts
history
downward
and
variance
considering
he
had
served
169-day
sentence
for
state
but
not
sentencing goals.
greater
than
to
meet
the
necessary
standard
of
review).
the
district
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473-75 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Burts conviction and sentence.
This court
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
move
in
representation.
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
contentions
are
adequately
4
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED