Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Tarik Kawendo Washington's conviction and sentence. Washington pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court sentenced Washington to 100 months in prison. The appellate court found no errors in the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea or in sentencing. The district court properly complied with federal sentencing guidelines and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-4046

    Original Title

    United States v. Washington, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Tarik Kawendo Washington's conviction and sentence. Washington pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court sentenced Washington to 100 months in prison. The appellate court found no errors in the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea or in sentencing. The district court properly complied with federal sentencing guidelines and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Tarik Kawendo Washington's conviction and sentence. Washington pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court sentenced Washington to 100 months in prison. The appellate court found no errors in the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea or in sentencing. The district court properly complied with federal sentencing guidelines and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-4046

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TARIK KAWENDO WASHINGTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:05-cr-00399-HMH)

    Submitted: June 22, 2006

    Decided: June 28, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James
    Barlow
    Loggins, Assistant
    Federal
    Public
    Defender,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Alan Lance Crick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tarik

    Kawendo

    Washington

    pled

    guilty

    to

    felon

    in

    possession of a firearm (count 1), felon in possession of a firearm


    with an obliterated serial number (count 2), and possession with
    intent to distribute cocaine base (count 3), in violation of 18
    U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e); 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B) (2000);
    and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000), respectively.

    The

    district court sentenced Washington to 100 months imprisonment on


    counts 1 and 3, and 60 months imprisonment on count 2, all to be
    served concurrently, three years of supervised release on each of
    counts 1, 2, and 3, to be served concurrently, and ordered payment
    of a $300 statutory assessment.*

    Washingtons counsel has filed a

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


    stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
    questioning

    whether

    the

    district

    court

    complied

    with

    the

    requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Washingtons plea.


    Washington was given an opportunity to file a supplemental pro se
    brief, but has failed to do so.

    The probation officer calculated a sentencing guideline range


    applicable to Washington of 151 to 188 months imprisonment founded
    on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of
    VI, as a career offender. After careful consideration of the facts
    and evidence, the district court determined that one of
    Washingtons predicate career offender convictions overstated his
    criminal history, and recalculated his offense level to 27 and his
    criminal history category to IV, with an attendant adjusted
    guideline range of 100 to 125 months imprisonment.
    - 2 -

    Washington did not move in the district court to withdraw


    his guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the
    Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error.

    See United States v.

    Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

    We have carefully

    reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain


    error in the district courts acceptance of Washingtons guilty
    plea.

    See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.

    1991).
    Moreover,
    consulted

    the

    we

    find

    Guidelines

    that

    and

    the

    district

    considered

    them

    court
    when

    properly

    sentencing

    Washington, that it made all the factual findings appropriate for


    that determination, considered the sentencing range along with the
    other factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
    2005), and imposed a sentence that was within the statutorily
    prescribed range and . . . reasonable.
    401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005).

    United States v. Hughes,

    The district court properly

    sentenced Washington in compliance with the mandates of United


    States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Washingtons sentence
    was reasonable.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    We therefore affirm Washingtons conviction and sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of


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

    - 3 -

    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

    representation.

    in

    this

    court

    for

    leave

    to

    withdraw

    from

    Counsels 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

    - 4 -

    You might also like