United States v. Jarmarphio Moose , 589 F. App'x 70 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4391
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    JARMARPHIO SHANTEZ MOOSE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-CCE-1)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2014               Decided: December 18, 2014
    Before DUNCAN    and   DIAZ,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
    United   States Attorney, Greensboro,  North  Carolina,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jarmarphio   Shantez    Moose          appeals   his     conviction    and
    120-month     sentence   imposed     following            his   guilty      plea    to
    possessing firearms as a convicted felon, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).          Moose’s counsel has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), finding
    no meritorious issues for appeal, but citing the voluntariness
    of Moose’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of his sentence.
    Moose was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief but has not done so.         The Government has declined to file
    a response.    Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.
    Before   accepting     Moose’s         guilty    plea,    the   district
    court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, complying with the
    dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Moose’s plea
    was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual
    basis.   See United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 116 (4th
    Cir. 1991).     The court fulfilled all requisite procedural steps
    in sentencing Moose, correctly calculating his Guidelines range;
    considering the parties’ arguments, Moose’s allocution, and the
    18   U.S.C.     § 3553(a)     (2012)         factors;        and     providing      an
    individualized assessment fully grounded in those factors.                          See
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).                        We presume on
    appeal that Moose’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
    reasonable,    and   Moose   has   not       met    his   burden     to   rebut    this
    2
    presumption.          See United States v. Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306
    (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 421
    (2014).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm Moose’s conviction and sentence.                             This court
    requires that counsel inform Moose, in writing, of the right to
    petition    the    Supreme       Court    of       the    United     States   for   further
    review.    If Moose 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 Moose.
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4391

Citation Numbers: 589 F. App'x 70

Judges: Duncan, Diaz, Davis

Filed Date: 12/18/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024