Filed: Jul. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5041 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATEEN J. ABDUL-AZIZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00039-FPS-JSK-1) Submitted: June 29, 2009 Decided: July 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5041 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATEEN J. ABDUL-AZIZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00039-FPS-JSK-1) Submitted: June 29, 2009 Decided: July 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATEEN J. ABDUL-AZIZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P.
Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00039-FPS-JSK-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2009 Decided: July 16, 2009
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mateen J. Abdul-Aziz appeals from the amended judgment
in a criminal case in which he was convicted, based on his
guilty plea, of one count of aiding and abetting in the
distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a playground,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006), 18
U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Counsel filed a brief under Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious arguments for appeal, but raising for the court’s
consideration, three issues: (1) whether Abdul-Aziz’s plea was
knowing and voluntary; (2) whether the district court committed
plain error by attributing 108 grams of crack cocaine to Abdul-
Aziz seized during the Pennsylvania traffic stop; and (3)
whether the court committed plain error in sentencing Abdul-Aziz
under a mandatory sentencing scheme. Abdul-Aziz filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising several issues. The Government has
filed a brief.
We have reviewed the record, including the guilty plea
colloquy, the sentencing transcript, the plea agreement and the
presentence investigation report, and find no meritorious
arguments for appeal. The Rule 11 colloquy was proper in all
respects and Abdul-Aziz’s plea was knowing and voluntary. The
district court properly determined Abdul-Aziz was competent to
plead and that he knew the ramifications of his plea. During
2
the colloquy, Abdul-Aziz was notified of the statutory
sentencing range, the elements of the offense, the effect of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the rights he was waiving by virtue of
his plea, along with other information necessary in order to
have a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Furthermore, the
Government presented a factual basis upon which the court could
find Abdul-Aziz was indeed guilty of the offense.
We find no plain error with the district court’s
adoption of the Presentence Investigation Report’s conclusion
regarding the amount of crack cocaine for which Abdul-Aziz
should be held responsible at sentencing. See United States v.
Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002) (“a silent defendant has the burden
to satisfy the plain-error rule”). Thus, it is Abdul-Aziz’s
burden to show (1) error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected
his substantial rights; and (4) that this court should exercise
its discretion to notice. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d
517, 529 (4th Cir. 2002). Abdul-Aziz knowingly and voluntarily
stipulated to the amount of crack cocaine used to reach the base
offense level. He withdrew any objection to that amount at
sentencing and he had no other objections. In addition, the
crack cocaine attributed to Abdul-Aziz for sentencing was
clearly relevant conduct. See United States v. Pauley,
289 F.3d
254, 259 (4th Cir. 2002), modified on reh’g,
304 F.3d 335 (4th
Cir. 2002). There was no error, much less plain error.
3
We further find no plain error with respect to the
mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United
States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding
that, when a United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005),
sentencing claim is raised for the first time on appeal, review
is for plain error). Based on a review of the record, there is
no nonspeculative basis for concluding that the treatment of the
Guidelines as mandatory prejudiced Abdul-Aziz. See United
States v. White,
405 F.3d 208, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2005).
Likewise, we find no plain error insofar as the court did not
consider the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and
powder cocaine.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal
from the conviction. We therefore affirm Abdul-Aziz’s
conviction. This court requires counsel inform his client, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If he requests a petition be
filed, but counsel believes 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 Abdul-Aziz. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction
and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5