Filed: Mar. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMAR RICHARD LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1) Submitted: January 22, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMAR RICHARD LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1) Submitted: January 22, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMAR RICHARD LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant.
Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamar Lee pled guilty to three counts of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012), and to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2012). The district court sentenced Lee to 188 months’
imprisonment on the drug counts and 120 months’ on the firearm
count, all to run concurrently. On appeal, Lee’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether Lee’s sentence is reasonable.
Lee has filed a pro se brief arguing that the district court
abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a
competency hearing. We affirm.
Lee contends that statements made by his counsel and
the Government, the district court’s decision to order a mental
health evaluation in the judgment, and Lee’s subsequent
diagnosis of schizophrenia required the district court to hold a
competency hearing. To prevail on his claim, Lee “must
establish that the trial court ignored facts raising a bona fide
doubt regarding [his] competency.” United States v. Moussaoui,
591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010). There is no fixed standard
for when a competency evaluation must be ordered, and the
2
court’s decision in this regard is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Id. Upon examination, Lee is not arguing that he
was incompetent to stand trial but that his mental health was a
mitigating factor at sentencing for his offenses. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that none of the
statements on which Lee relies raised a bona fide doubt about
his competency.
Next, counsel questions the reasonableness of Lee’s
sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We “first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
[properly] calculate . . . the Guidelines range, . . . failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” 552 U.S. at
51. When considering the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, we “take into account the totality of the
circumstances.”
Id. If the sentence is within or below a
properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that
the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon,
722
F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013).
We conclude that the district court accurately
calculated the applicable Guidelines range and did not commit
3
procedural error when sentencing Lee. See United States v.
King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-83 (4th Cir.) (holding that Alford ∗ pleas
count in calculating criminal history), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct.
216 (2012). We also conclude that the district court provided
sufficient reasons for its within-Guidelines sentence, basing
its sentence on Lee’s recidivism, the seriousness of his crimes,
the danger that he posed to the public, and the lack of
mitigating factors. Given the district court’s thorough
explanation of its reasons, Lee has not rebutted the presumption
of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Lee, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, but Lee nonetheless requests a petition be filed,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Lee.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
∗
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
4
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
