US v. Christopher Belin, No. 08-4176 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER BELIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00063-FDW-DCK-1) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Marshall Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Christopher imposed upon his Belin guilty appeals plea to his 60-month possession with sentence intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), statutorily (b) mandatory § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). pursuant to concluding questioning under between 21 U.S.C. offenses powder cocaine. § Belin s sentence term. counsel has California, 386 no meritorious grounds the statutory 841 create involving crack filed U.S. mandatory cocaine and the U.S.C. a brief (1967), appeal minimum but sentences disparities those involving Belin was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief. We 738 for unconstitutional was 21 See v. are whether minimum Appellate Anders there (2006). review a criminal sentence using the abuse of discretion standard. for We affirm. reasonableness, Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). Reasonableness review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. Here, the district court correctly calculated Belin s advisory guideline range, considered that range in conjunction with the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008), and adequately explained its reason for imposing sentence. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th 2 Cir. 2007). We sentence, . Farrior, 535 original). . recently . is F.3d held per 210, that se a statutorily reasonable. 224 (4th Cir. United 2008) required States v. (emphasis in Moreover, the recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines have statutory mandatory offenses. As the Supreme Court observed in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 sentencing S. no Ct. courts effect on minimum 558, the sentences 573 remain constitutionality (2007), bound by sentences prescribed [by statute]. for after the crack the of the cocaine amendments, mandatory minimum We conclude that Belin s sentence is 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 Belin s 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 further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel 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 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
