US v. Lamar Lee, No. 13-4498 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAMAR RICHARD LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00105-RBS-LRL-1) Submitted: January 22, 2014 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 7, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. for Appellant. United States Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lamar Lee pled guilty to three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012), and to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in (2012). violation The district of 18 U.S.C. court §§ 922(g)(1), sentenced Lee to 924(a)(2) 188 months imprisonment on the drug counts and 120 months on the firearm count, all to run concurrently. On appeal, Lee s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Lee s sentence is reasonable. Lee has filed a pro se brief arguing that the district court abused its discretion competency hearing. by failing to sua sponte order a We affirm. Lee contends that statements made by his counsel and the Government, the district court s decision to order a mental health evaluation in the judgment, and Lee s subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia required the district court to hold a competency hearing. To prevail on his claim, Lee must establish that the trial court ignored facts raising a bona fide doubt regarding [his] competency. United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010). There is no fixed standard for must when a competency evaluation 2 be ordered, and the court s decision in this regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. Upon examination, Lee is not arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial but that his mental health was a mitigating factor at sentencing for his offenses. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that none of the statements on which Lee relies raised a bona fide doubt about his competency. Next, sentence. counsel questions 51 reasonableness of Lee s We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 38, the (2007). We first Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to [properly] calculate . . . the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider selecting a the [18 sentence U.S.C.] based on § 3553(a) clearly [(2012)] erroneous failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. 51. When sentence, considering we take circumstances. Id. the substantive into account factors, facts, 552 U.S. at reasonableness the or totality of of the the If the sentence is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). We conclude that the district court accurately calculated the applicable Guidelines range and did not commit 3 procedural error when sentencing Lee. See United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-83 (4th Cir.) (holding that Alford pleas count in calculating criminal history), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012). sufficient We also conclude that the district court provided reasons for its within-Guidelines sentence, basing its sentence on Lee s recidivism, the seriousness of his crimes, the danger mitigating that he posed factors. to Given the the public, district and the lack court s of thorough explanation of its reasons, Lee has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lee, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of review. If counsel believes the United that such a States for petition further would be frivolous, but Lee nonetheless requests a petition be filed, counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lee. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 4 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
