US v. Monwazee Boston, No. 11-4587 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4587 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONWAZEE BOSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:10-cr-00907-HFF-4) Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI Carolina, for Appellant. United States Attorney, Appellee. & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Greenville, South Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Monwazee Boston pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). or crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Boston to a total of 120 months imprisonment, consisting of 60 months on the conspiracy charge and a mandatory consecutive 60 months on the firearm accordance charge. with Boston s Anders v. counsel California, filed 386 U.S. a brief 738 in (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but challenging the factual finding that Boston was a member of a gang, and questioning whether Boston s sentence was reasonable. Boston was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, supplemental but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Boston challenges the district court s denial of his objection member to of the the presentence Hidden Valley report s Kings finding gang. At that the he was a sentencing hearing, the court heard testimony on this issue and determined that it was more likely than not that Boston was a member of the gang. After reviewing the evidence presented, we find no clear error in this determination and therefore affirm the district court s decision to overrule that 2 objection. See United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 258 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard). We have reviewed Boston s sentence and find that it was properly reasonable. calculated and that the sentence imposed was See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, appropriately advisory, considered arguments of treated the counsel, Sentencing applicable and § 3553(a) (2006) factors. the weighed Guidelines Guidelines range the relevant 18 and as the U.S.C. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, This of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Boston, Court of in the If Boston 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. 3 Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Boston. 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
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.
