Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05200/USCOURTS-ca4-06-05200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Lorenzo Tillman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5200

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AARON LORENZO TILLMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:05-cr-00472-TLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2007 Decided: December 10, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Price Elmore, ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-5200 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/10/2007 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Lorenzo Tillman pled guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

and to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Tillman was sentenced to the statutory

maximum of 240 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no

meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the

district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 as well as whether the sentence is reasonable. Tillman

was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but

did not do so, and the Government elected not to file a responsive

brief.

Because Tillman did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea

in the district court, any alleged Rule 11 error is reviewed by

this court for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Tillman

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and

that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v.

White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). We have reviewed the

record and find no error.

Tillman also contends that his sentence is unreasonable.

However, the district court appropriately treated the Sentencing

Appeal: 06-5200 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/10/2007 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the

advisory guideline range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d

540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). As Tillman’s applicable advisory

guideline range of 360 months to life imprisonment was greater than

the statutory maximum of 240 months’ imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(C) (2000), the court properly determined that the

statutory maximum was the advisory guideline sentence. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(a) (2005). Thus, Tillman’s

240-month sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States

v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2309 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2462-65 (2007) (approving presumption of reasonableness accorded

sentences within properly calculated guideline range). We discern

no basis to conclude that the presumption of reasonableness has

been overcome.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the 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 this court for leave to withdraw from

Appeal: 06-5200 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/10/2007 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

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: 06-5200 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/10/2007 Pg: 4 of 4