UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND O. LEECH, a/k/a Neil,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00427-WDQ-2)

Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 23, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald C. Ruter, THE LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C., 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond O. Leech appeals the 151-month sentence 

imposed by the district court following this court’s remand for 

resentencing. On appeal, Leech’s counsel filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the 

reasonableness of the sentence. Leech filed a pro se 

supplemental brief, in which he raises several challenges to his 

conviction and sentence, including a challenge to the district 

court’s determination of the quantity of drugs for which he was 

held accountable for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we 

affirm. 

Both Leech and his counsel question the reasonableness 

of Leech’s sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must first 

ensure that the district court did not commit any significant 

procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the 

applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the 

sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once 

we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. 

If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing 

Guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable. United States v. 
3

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). This

presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” 

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we 

conclude that the district court committed no procedural or 

substantive error in sentencing Leech to 151 months’ 

imprisonment, a sentence within the applicable Sentencing 

Guidelines range. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 

(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v. 

Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that 

defendant’s stipulation to drug amounts prior to sentencing 

waived right to appeal issue).

Turning to Leech’s remaining pro se issues, we 

conclude that the district court permitted Leech to fully 

allocute at the resentencing hearing, as was his right. United 

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding 

that defendant “ha[s] a renewed right to allocute at 

resentencing”). Additionally, Leech is foreclosed from 

challenging his conviction in this appeal, because we affirmed 

his conviction in a prior proceeding and no exceptions exist 

permitting Leech to now raise these foreclosed claims. See

United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)

(discussing mandate rule). 
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Leech, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Leech 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 thereof was served on 

Leech. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED