US v. Shaking Fisher, No. 15-4426 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAKING FISHER, a/k/a Shy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00424-CCE-1) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016 Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shaking Fisher pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Count 1 of his indictment, distributing cocaine base (“crack”), and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appeal, but asserting raising there the sentence was reasonable. are no following meritorious issue: grounds whether for Fisher’s Fisher was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has failed to do so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–Santana, 668 F.3d properly 95, 100-01 calculated (4th Cir. Fisher’s 2012). advisory The district Sentencing court Guidelines range, discussed some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and explained why it imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range but above what Fisher had sought. Thus, we find that Fisher’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328-29 (4th Cir. 2009). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Fisher’s conviction and sentence. 2 We This court requires that counsel inform Fisher, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Fisher Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Fisher. 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 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.
