US v. Freddie Hanson, No. 12-4226 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4226 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FREDDIE LEE HANSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00186-FDW-1) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Defender, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Freddie mandatory without Lee minimum a plea Hanson sentence appeals imposed agreement to from after conspiracy the he 120-month guilty distribute to pleaded crack cocaine and three counts of possessing with intent to distribute Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 crack cocaine. U.S. 738 (1967), brief asserting that there are no meritorious issues but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in failing to grant a downward departure below the statutory minimum based on Hanson s assistance to the Government. Finding no error, we affirm. The Guidelines Government Manual declined § 5K1.1 to (2010) file a motion U.S. for Sentencing substantial assistance but recommended a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. may be sentenced Government. Government s motion. 18 A defendant subject to a statutory minimum below U.S.C. sole the minimum § 3553(e) discretion only upon (2006). It to motion file a the within is of the § 5K1.1 See Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 129-30 (1996); United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2006). This may not be reviewed unless the Government s refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive or is not rationally related to a legitimate government objective. 504 U.S. 181, 184-87 (1992). Wade v. United States, The decision may also be reviewed 2 if the plea agreement states that the Government will file a motion. United States v. Wallace, 22 F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994). Hanson does not argue that any of these exceptions apply and we do not find a basis to review the Government s decision. Therefore, the court could mandatory statutory minimum. not sentence Hanson below the See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Hanson has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Hanson s convictions and sentence. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Hanson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hanson 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 Hanson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
