UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICKEY DWAYNE TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:02-cr-01051)

Submitted: August 26, 2008 Decided: October 14, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney W. Richey, RICHEY AND RICHEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mickey Dwayne Taylor pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent

to distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine and more

than fifty grams of a mixture containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine and a quantity of methylenedioxy-methamphetamine

(“MDMA”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000);

possession with intent to distribute a quantity of MDMA, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession with intent to

distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced

him to 360 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised

release, and a $300 special assessment. In Taylor’s first appeal,

we affirmed his convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded

for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. Taylor, 224 F. App’x 269 (4th

Cir. 2007) (No. 04-4247).

On remand, the Government did not present any evidence to

support an enhancement for Taylor’s role in the offense pursuant to

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1 (2000), and the

parties agreed that a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months

applied. The district court granted the Government’s motion for a

downward departure for substantial assistance pursuant to USSG

§ 5K1.1 and sentenced Taylor to 211 months of imprisonment, five
*

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

3

years of supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. On

appeal, counsel filed an Anders* brief in which he states there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the

district court erred in sentencing Taylor to 211 months of

imprisonment. Taylor was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. The Government

waived the filing of a brief on appeal. We affirm.

We review a sentence imposed by the district court for

procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597

(2007). The court considers the totality of the circumstances in

assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This

court presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly

calculated Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Go,

517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of

reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). In considering the

district court’s application of the Guidelines, this court reviews

factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.

United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006).

The district court correctly calculated Taylor’s

Guidelines range, which resulted from both the drug quantity

determination and Taylor’s status as a career offender, as each
4

yielded a base offense level of thirty-four. The court then

reduced its intended sentence of 235 months by twenty-four months

to reach its sentence of 211 months. Although counsel suggests

that Taylor should have received a greater reduction for his

assistance to authorities, he does not provide any specific reasons

for this assertion. Moreover, in explaining the Government’s

departure motion, the Assistant United States Attorney stated that,

although Taylor qualified for a departure, his cooperation was not

extensive. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Taylor’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We

therefore affirm Taylor’s sentence. This court requires that

counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Taylor

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 Taylor. 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