US v. Albert Pharr, No. 08-4261 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4261 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERT LAMONT PHARR, a/k/a Mont, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00253-RJC-5) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trevor M. Fuller, FULLER & BARNES, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Lamont Pharr appeals the 300-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006); one count of possession with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006); one count of possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006); and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Pharr s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in imposing Pharr s sentence. Pharr has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a criminal sentence using the abuse of discretion standard. for reasonableness, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). that Pharr s reasonable. Guidelines sentence is The district range, treated both procedurally court the properly Guidelines and We conclude substantively calculated as Pharr s advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence). The court s sentence was based on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed Pharr s pro se informal brief and find no merit to his claims. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s This court requires that counsel inform his 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.
