US v. Enzo Blanks, No. 15-4155 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4155 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ENZO BLANKS, a/k/a Zo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00512-ELH-2) Submitted: October 28, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara E. Kittay, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Enzo Blanks pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). Blanks and the Government negotiated a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, stipulating that the parties agreed to imposition of the accordance with mandatory Anders v. minimum 120-month California, 386 sentence. U.S. 738 In (1967), Blanks’ counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court procedurally erred in imposing Blanks’ sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Blanks has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment. We review a defendant’s abuse-of-discretion standard.” 38, 41 (2007). sentence “under a deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for § 3553(a) an appropriate (2012) selected sentence. factors, sentence, and sufficiently 552 U.S. at 49-51. 2 considered the 18 U.S.C. explained the If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within . . . a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that sentence the is unreasonable . . . § 3553(a) factors.” We review the when measured against the Id. district court’s drug-quantity calculation and the application of a leadership enhancement for clear error. United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 756 (4th Cir. 2011). The district court heard parties to argue their cases. conclude that erroneous. the district and allowed the We have reviewed the record and court’s findings are not clearly Our review of the record further shows no other procedural or substantive error. minimum evidence sentence reasonable. the Additionally, the mandatory district court imposed is per se United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 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 Blanks, in writing, of 3 the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Blanks 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. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Blanks. 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 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.
