United States v. Tealzie Randall, III, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Tealzie Randall, III, 4th Cir. (2012)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TEALZIE RANDALL, III, a/k/a Tealize Randall, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00800-PMD-8)
Submitted:
August 16, 2012
Decided:
August 20, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina,
for Appellant.
Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tealzie
Randall,
III,
appeals
the
eighty-four-month
sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea
to
possession
with
intent
to
distribute
cocaine
and
cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2006).
On appeal,
Randalls
Anders
counsel
filed
brief
pursuant
to
v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
grounds
reasonableness
of
supplemental brief. *
for
the
appeal
sentence.
but
questioning
Randall
filed
the
pro
se
Finding no error, we affirm.
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the
district court did not commit any significant procedural error,
such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines
range,
failing
to
consider
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
(2006)
Gall v.
Once we have determined
that there is no procedural error, we must then consider the
substantive
reasonableness
of
the
sentence,
tak[ing]
into
Randall contends that counsel was ineffective in
presenting his motion to suppress evidence.
We conclude that
the record does not conclusively demonstrate that counsel was
ineffective.
See United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979
(4th Cir. 1998) (providing standard); see also Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984) (providing elements of
ineffective assistance claim).
Thus, we decline to consider
this claim on direct appeal.
account
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
Id.
If
the
sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines
range, we presume it is reasonable.
United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
This presumption
may be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 3553(a) factors.
Montes-Pineda,
445
F.3d
375,
quotation marks omitted).
379
(4th
United States v.
Cir.
2006)
(internal
Upon review, we conclude that the
district court committed no procedural or substantive error in
sentencing
Randall
to
eighty-four
months
imprisonment,
sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
United
States
v.
Lynn,
592
F.3d
572,
587
(4th
Cir.
a
See
2010)
(providing standard of review); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 46.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
This court
requires that counsel inform Randall, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.
If
Randall
requests
counsel
believes
that
counsel
may
in
move
representation.
was
served
on
such
this
that
a
petition
petition
court
for
would
leave
to
be
be
filed,
but
frivolous,
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
Randall.
We
deny
Randalls
request
for
new
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
3
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
