United States of America v. Raymond O. Leech, a/k/a Neil

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND O. LEECH, a/k/a Neil,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00427-WDQ-2)
Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 23, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald C. Ruter, THE LAW OFFICES OF GERALD C. RUTER, P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raymond O. Leech appeals the 151-month sentence
imposed by the district court following this court’s remand for
resentencing. On appeal, Leech’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the
reasonableness of the sentence. Leech filed a pro se
supplemental brief, in which he raises several challenges to his
conviction and sentence, including a challenge to the district
court’s determination of the quantity of drugs for which he was
held accountable for sentencing purposes. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Both Leech and his counsel question the reasonableness
of Leech’s sentence. In reviewing a sentence, we must first
ensure that the district court did not commit any significant
procedural error, such as failing to properly calculate the
applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once
we have determined that there is no procedural error, we must
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
“tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
If the sentence imposed is within the appropriate Sentencing
Guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable. United States v.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). This
presumption may be rebutted by a showing “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review, we
conclude that the district court committed no procedural or
substantive error in sentencing Leech to 151 months’
imprisonment, a sentence within the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines range. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577
(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.
Williams, 29 F.3d 172, 174-75 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that
defendant’s stipulation to drug amounts prior to sentencing
waived right to appeal issue).
Turning to Leech’s remaining pro se issues, we
conclude that the district court permitted Leech to fully
allocute at the resentencing hearing, as was his right. United
States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding
that defendant “ha[s] a renewed right to allocute at
resentencing”). Additionally, Leech is foreclosed from
challenging his conviction in this appeal, because we affirmed
his conviction in a prior proceeding and no exceptions exist
permitting Leech to now raise these foreclosed claims. See
United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)
(discussing mandate rule).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Leech, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Leech requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Leech. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --