US v. Nichols, No. 05-4812 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STACY TYREE NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-04-501) Submitted: May 17, 2006 Decided: June 13, 2006 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romallus O. Murphy, LAW OFFICE OF ROMALLUS O. MURPHY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stacy Tyree Nichols pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 34.6 grams of cocaine base crack (Count 1) and to being a felon in possession of a weapon (Count 4) and was sentenced to 190 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising one issue: whether Nichols was properly sentenced to 190 months of imprisonment. We affirm. We find that Nichols was properly sentenced, under 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), as an armed career criminal based on his prior North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering. Nichols was sentenced within his properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. We conclude that his ultimate sentence, which fell at the low end of this range, is reasonable under Booker. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (stating review standard); see United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) ( [A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have examined the entire record in this case, in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. motion for abeyance. This court requires that counsel inform his - 2 - We deny Nichols client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s 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 - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
