Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    United States v. Green, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ivan Bernard Green's conviction and sentence. Green was convicted of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting. Green's attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but requested review of whether the 70-month sentence was reasonable. The Court found the sentence was reasonable and within statutory guidelines. It also determined the district court properly calculated and considered sentencing guidelines and factors in imposing the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Green, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ivan Bernard Green's conviction and sentence. Green was convicted of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting. Green's attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but requested review of whether the 70-month sentence was reasonable. The Court found the sentence was reasonable and within statutory guidelines. It also determined the district court properly calculated and considered sentencing guidelines and factors in imposing the sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-4237

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ivan Bernard Green's conviction and sentence. Green was convicted of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting. Green's attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but requested review of whether the 70-month sentence was reasonable. The Court found the sentence was reasonable and within statutory guidelines. It also determined the district court properly calculated and considered sentencing guidelines and factors in imposing the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    United States v. Green, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Ivan Bernard Green's conviction and sentence. Green was convicted of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting. Green's attorney argued there were no meritorious issues for appeal but requested review of whether the 70-month sentence was reasonable. The Court found the sentence was reasonable and within statutory guidelines. It also determined the district court properly calculated and considered sentencing guidelines and factors in imposing the sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-4237

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    IVAN BERNARD GREEN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-03-66)

    Submitted:

    December 28, 2005

    Decided:

    March 28, 2006

    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF WALTER H. PARAMORE, III,


    P.C., Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret
    Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ivan Bernard Green was convicted by a jury on nine counts
    of filing false income tax returns and aiding and abetting the same
    conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287, 2 (2000).

    In February

    2005, the district court sentenced Green to a total of seventy


    months imprisonment, at the bottom of the range provided by the
    advisory sentencing guidelines. Greens attorney has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing
    that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal;
    however, he requests that this court review whether the district
    court imposed a sentence that was reasonable.

    Green was notified

    of the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he


    declined to do so.
    After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a
    sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the
    sentencing guidelines.

    See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,

    546 (4th Cir. 2005).

    However, in determining a sentence post-

    Booker, sentencing courts are still required to calculate and


    consider the guideline range prescribed thereby as well as the
    factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2000).

    Id.

    Post-Booker,

    a sentence will be affirmed if it is both reasonable and within the


    statutorily prescribed range.

    Id. at 546-47.

    In addition, while

    we believe that the appropriate circumstances for imposing a


    sentence outside the guideline range will depend on the facts of

    - 2 -

    individual cases, we have no reason to doubt that most sentences


    will

    continue

    to

    fall

    within

    the

    applicable

    range.

    States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 219 (4th Cir. 2005).

    United
    Here, the

    record indicates that the district court calculated and considered


    both the guideline range and the 3553(a) factors.

    On the record

    before us, we conclude the sentence was reasonable.


    Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record
    and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
    Greens conviction and sentence.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    This court requires that counsel

    inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition to the


    Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

    If the

    client 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.

    Counsels motion

    must state that a copy was served on the client.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like