Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04293/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Troy Renald Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY RENALD WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00421)

Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Parrott, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4293 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Troy Renald Washington pleaded guilty to possession of

materials transported in interstate commerce depicting minors in

sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2252A(a)(4)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to 120

months in prison to be followed by a lifetime term of supervised

release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether

Washington’s sentence--in particular, his term of supervised

release--is reasonable, but alleging no error by the district court

and concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

Washington was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm. 

This court will affirm a sentence that is within the

statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable. United States v.

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2054 (2006). “[A] sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445

F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable

presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence). 

Washington’s 120-month sentence was the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence because, as he acknowledged in his plea

Appeal: 07-4293 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 2 of 4
*

Washington had prior state convictions for indecent liberties

with a child and second degree exploitation of a minor.

- 3 -

agreement, Washington had “at least one prior conviction” relating

to abusive sexual conduct involving a minor.* Absent a government

motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000), the district

court lacked authority to sentence Washington below the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d

565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the life term of supervised

release was proper under both the applicable statute, see former 18

U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2000) (supervised release term for violation of

§ 2552A “is any term of years or life”), and guideline, see USSG

§ 5D1.2(c)(policy statement) (if sex offense committed, the

statutory maximum term of supervised release is recommended).

Accordingly, we find Washington’s sentence is presumptively

reasonable.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

affirm Washington’s conviction and sentence. This court requires

that counsel inform her 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

Appeal: 07-4293 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

Appeal: 07-4293 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/07/2007 Pg: 4 of 4