Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04594/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Genaia Tyrheen Moore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GENAIA TYRHEEN MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00022-2)

Submitted: January 28, 2008 Decided: February 15, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick G. Davis, THE LAW OFFICE OF RODERICK G. DAVIS, PLLC,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth

Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4594 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Genaia Tyrheen Moore pled guilty without a plea agreement

to: conspiracy to commit bank robbery (Count One), bank robbery

(Count Two), possession of a firearm during a crime of violence

(Count Three), stealing a firearm that moved in interstate commerce

(Count Four), and possession of a stolen firearm (Count Five).

Moore’s advisory guideline range with respect to Counts One, Two,

Four, and Five, was 46-57 months, reflecting an offense level of 23

and a criminal history category of I. Moore also was subject to a

consecutive five-year sentence on Count Three. The district court

concluded that the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West

2000 & Supp. 2007) warranted a sentence below the advisory

guideline range. The court imposed concurrent sentences of thirtysix months on Counts One, Two, Four, and Five, to be followed by

sixty months on Count Three, for an aggregate sentence of ninetysix months.

Moore now appeals. Her attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging

that the sentence is unreasonable but stating that there are no

meritorious issues for review. Moore has filed a pro se

supplemental brief asserting that counsel was ineffective. Finding

no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a sentence imposed after United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to determine whether it is “within the

Appeal: 07-4594 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
*

The district court measured the nature and seriousness of the

crimes against Moore’s “horrific background and history of

psychiatric care and suicide attempts, in combination with a crack

addiction.” These factors, the court found, placed her in a

different position than many defendants who appear before the court

for sentencing.

- 3 -

statutorily prescribed range” and reasonable. United

States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Here,

Moore’s sentence was statutorily authorized. Reasonableness review

requires us to consider whether the chosen sentence constitutes an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Pauley, No. 07-4270, 2007 WL

4555520, at *5 (4th Cir. Dec. 28, 2007). In making this decision,

we first examine the sentence “for significant procedural errors.”

Id. There were no such errors in this case; we note that the

sentencing court: correctly calculated the advisory guideline

range; heard from the parties regarding an appropriate sentence;

considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West

2000 & Supp. 2007); and articulated compelling reasons*

 for

imposing a variance sentence. Id.; see Gall v. United States, No.

06-7949, 2007 WL 4292116, at *7 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2007). Our

reasonableness review also requires us to consider the substance of

the sentence taking into account “the totality of the

circumstances.” Pauley, 2007 WL 4555520, at *5. We conclude that

the variance sentence, which falls roughly twenty percent below the

lowest end of the advisory guideline range, was also substantively

reasonable.

Appeal: 07-4594 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

Moore’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not

cognizable on direct appeal because ineffectiveness does not

conclusively appear on the face of the record. Moore should raise

the claim, if at all, in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198

(4th Cir. 1999); United States v. King, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.

1999). 

We have examined the entire record in this case in

accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court

requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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, counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the

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: 07-4594 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 4 of 4