UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SHANNON ANDRE PETERS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00047-BO-1) 

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Richard L. Cannon, III, CANNON LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Greenville, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Shannon Andre Peters pled guilty without benefit of a 

written plea agreement to distribution of more than five grams 

of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) 

(2006). The district court imposed a 262-month sentence. 

Peters timely appealed. 

Counsel for Peters has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the 

issues suggested by Peters that he was prejudiced by the 

Government’s refusal to permit him to cooperate with authorities 

in an effort to reduce his sentence after he learned that the 21 

U.S.C. § 851 (2006) information would increase his Guidelines 

range, that the court should have granted a downward variance 

because the Guidelines sentence over-represented the seriousness 

of Peters’ record, and a sentence less than 262 months would 

have been appropriate in light of Peters’ age of 32, the lack of 

offense-related violence, and family issues. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm. 

 When determining a sentence, the district court must 

calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider 

it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 

(2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

2 
sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly 

outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 591. Sentences within the applicable Guidelines range may be 

presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United 

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Peters, appropriately treating the 

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and 

considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the 

relevant § 3553(a) factors. Although Peters alleged that, had 

he known of the full effect of the 18 U.S.C. § 851 information 

filed against him, he would have cooperated, there was no error. 

Peters was afforded the opportunity to cooperate with the 

Government and admittedly chose not to in a timely manner. Only 

upon learning that the bottom of his Guidelines range would 

increase from 188 to 262 months did he attempt to cooperate. 

Peters was aware that the Government filed a § 851 information 

at the time of his arraignment. 

We have considered Peters’ arguments that his sentence 

was not reasonable because it overrepresented the seriousness of 

his past criminal activity and that it should have been lower 

based on his age, lack of offense related violence, and 

obligations for the care of several children and other family 

3 
4 

members, and conclude that the sentence the district court 

imposed was not an abuse of discretion. 

We have reviewed Peters’ pro se supplemental brief and 

find no merit in his claims regarding the Full Faith and Credit 

Clause, § 851 procedures, and whether the district court was 

required to elicit specific objections after imposing the 

sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Peters’ conviction and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Peters, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Peters 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 Peters. 

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