US v. Roscoe Abell, No. 09-4017 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROSCOE ABELL, a/k/a Scoe, a/k/a Big Bra, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-1) Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: November 10, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roscoe Abell pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, 500 grams or more of cocaine, marijuana, and Ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), and two counts of distribution of cocaine base and aiding and (b)(1)(C) abetting, (2006), in 18 violation U.S.C. § 2 of 21 (2006). U.S.C. The § 841(a)(1), district court imposed an enhanced statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months imprisonment based on a prior felony drug conviction. The district court also imposed a supervised release term of fifty years. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 851, whether the sentence was properly enhanced based on a prior felony sentence drug imposed. conviction, In a and pro se the reasonableness supplemental brief, of the Abell likewise contests the reasonableness of his imprisonment term, as well as the fifty-year supervised release term. Abell also argues addressing for sentencing retroactive disparities application for cocaine of legislation powder Finding no reversible error, we affirm. and base. We remand, however, for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. 2 cocaine We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensured that Abell s plea was knowing and voluntary. We also conclude that the 240-month sentence and fifty-year supervised release term imposed by the district court were procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We have considered the claims asserted in counsel s brief and Abell s pro se supplemental brief and conclude they are without merit. We therefore affirm Abell s conviction and sentence. Although we affirm Abell s conviction and sentence, we so remand that the written reflect the distribution Sixteen and Seventeen sentenced. * to of judgment cocaine which can base Abell be corrected offenses in pled guilty to Counts and was We grant Abell s motion to amend his notice of * The written judgment incorrectly recites that Abell was found guilty in Counts Sixteen and Seventeen of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Because both possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base are offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carry the same penalties, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), the clerical error in the judgment did not affect Abell s sentence or otherwise prejudice him. 3 direct appeal, but deny his Motion to Receive Jenks and Brady Materials, and Motion to Compel Discovery from Attorney. This writing, of court his requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Abell, Court of in the If Abell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing 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 Abell. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 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.
