US v. Roger Sarvis, No. 12-5003 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-5003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER SARVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-02254-TLW-2) Submitted: August 5, 2013 Decided: August 8, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tristan M. Shaffer, TRISTAN SHAFFER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Chapin, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger after received Sarvis he appeals pled the guilty to 156-month conspiring sentence to he distribute several controlled substances, including oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (2006). Sarvis counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states appeal, that he but has identified questions unconstitutionally no whether ineffective in meritorious trial failing issues counsel to object to for was the Government s drug weight calculations, which assertedly included several drug quantities that Sarvis and his wife possessed either legally or for their own personal use. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the record does not conclusively demonstrate any such inefficacy, and we therefore assistance claim. decline to entertain Sarvis ineffective United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 376 (2012). 1 Sarvis has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he asks to be resentenced and to receive a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2012) because he cooperated with the Government. 1 But a court may revisit the Such a claim is more appropriately U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013). 2 raised under 28 Government s decision not to file a motion for substantial assistance only if the Government s failure to do so was in breach of an obligation under the plea agreement, or if its decision was motivated by an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 686-87 (4th Cir. 2001). exceptions are at issue in this case, and None of these it follows that Sarvis arguments in this respect are without merit. Sarvis also contends that he should be resentenced because he was assigned responsibility for more drug weight than he had anticipated when he pled guilty. But his sentence was in fact based on his own stipulations as to the applicable adjusted offense level. Moreover, Sarvis was fully apprised at the time of his plea that, at sentencing, the court could assign him responsibility for a higher drug weight than he expected. His claim is therefore without merit. 2 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 Sarvis request that we accord his appeal the same treatment as that received by an appellant in a separate appeal is meritless, as the cases are procedurally and factually dissimilar. 3 This court requires that counsel inform Sarvis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sarvis 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 Sarvis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
