Unpublished
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 08-4485
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00079-D-1)
Submitted:
September 2, 2010
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to the terms of his written plea agreement,
Ryan
Oshay
Lee
pleaded
guilty
to
possession
with
intent
to
that,
pursuant
to
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
See
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
32(h).
After
hearing
for
has
filed
his
brief
pursuant
to
district
court
abused
its
discretion
in
denying
Lees
reasons, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for the appointment
of new counsel for an abuse of discretion.
Corporan-Cuevas,
35
F.3d
953,
956
(4th
United States v.
Cir.
1994).
In
considers:
(1)
the
timeliness
2
of
the
motion;
(2)
the
that
it
resulted
in
total
151,
against
156
the
(4th
Cir.
district
of
communication
2004).
courts
administration of justice.
lack
These
factors
interest
in
are
balanced
the
orderly
Id. at 157.
court
granted
the
motion
and
appointed
Lee
Although
his
third
When sentencing
motion.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion
in
denying
Lees
motion.
The
district
court
insufficient
which
basis
for
the
motion,
was
predicated
exclusively on the fact that counsel had conferred with Lee only
once prior to sentencing and that counsel had not provided Lee
discovery materials.
Accordingly, we
See id. at
156-57.
Counsel also asks this court to review the 336-month
sentence
the
district
court
imposed,
which
was
101
months
We review
(2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th
Cir. 2010).
both
the
and
substantive
sentence.
reasonableness
of
court
Guidelines
properly
range,
calculated
considered
the
18
the
defendants
U.S.C.
advisory
3553(a)
(2006)
whether
the
district
court
imposes
an
Id.
above,
Regardless
below,
or
within-Guidelines
sentence,
it
must
place
on
the
record
an
This court
into
including
range.
the
account
extent
the
of
totality
any
of
variance
the
from
circumstances,
the
Guidelines
defendants
Guidelines
range,
this
court
consider[s]
v.
McNeill,
598
F.3d
161,
166
(4th
Cir.)
United
(internal
history.
were
leader,
and
relevant
increasingly
that
policy
he
violent,
had
that
several
statement
he
probation
specifically
was
known
violations.
contemplates
an
gang
The
upward
In
to
the
background
commentary
this
policy
statement,
the
p.s.,
comment.
(backgd).
This
was
precisely
USSG
the
decision
to
depart
substantively unreasonable.
was
neither
procedurally
nor
history,
offense
the
levels,
district
see
court
USSG
considered
incrementally
4A1.3(a)(4)(B),
p.s.,
and
interim
offense
levels
did
not
adequately
reflect
the
particularly
violent
crimes,
upon
his
return
to
the
community.
We conclude that the district court adhered to the
proper
procedure
for
4A1.3(a)(4)(B), p.s.;
departure
pursuant
to
USSG
The
and
voluntary.
courts judgment.
Accordingly,
we
affirm
the
district
that
believes
petition
be
filed,
but
counsel
that
such
Counsels motion
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
AFFIRMED