UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4943

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRENESIA S. DOCTOR, a/k/a Neenee,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District 

Judge. (2:07-cr-00302-DCN-1)

Submitted: December 10, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wesley Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR & LOCKLAIR, PC, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trenesia S. Doctor appeals her conviction and the 

eighty-eight month sentence imposed by the district court 

following her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the 

intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty 

grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Doctor’s counsel has filed a 

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

asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly 

denied Doctor’s request for a downward departure based on the 

safety valve provision in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(“USSG”) § 5C1.2(a) (2007). Doctor was advised of her right to 

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We 

affirm. 

We review Doctor’s sentence for abuse of discretion. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step 

in this review requires us to ensure that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error. United States v. 

Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Significant 

procedural errors include “‘failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any 
3

deviation from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 

51). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Doctor questions whether the district court properly 

denied her request for a downward departure based on the safety 

valve provision, USSG § 5C1.2(a). Our review of the record 

leads us to conclude that the district court correctly 

determined that Doctor failed to establish that she had 

satisfied all the requirements for application of the safety 

valve.

We also conclude that the district court properly 

reduced the required 120-month sentence by thirty-two months 

pursuant to USSG §§ 5C1.3, 5K2.23 because Doctor had served a 

state sentence of that length based on conduct that was included 

as relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction. Thus, 

we conclude that the district court properly calculated Doctor’s 

guideline range. The eighty-eight month statutorily required 

sentence that Doctor received is per se reasonable. See United 

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) (“A 

statutorily required sentence . . . is per se reasonable). 

Therefore, Doctor’s sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. 
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Doctor in writing of her

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Doctor 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 Doctor.

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