United States v. Sean Contee , 585 F. App'x 260 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN BRADFORD CONTEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:13-cr-00175-DKC-2)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Gregory Hall, LAW OFFICES OF MARC G. HALL, P.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Leah Bressack, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Bradford Contee pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court imposed
a within-Guidelines sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Contee’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but challenges
Contee’s sentence. Contee has filed a pro se supplemental brief
arguing that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he
did not have access to discovery and his plea was a result of
threats by counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review sentences for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining the
procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines
range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an
appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.at 49–51.
2
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.” Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. If the sentence is within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal
that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a
presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “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). In light of
these standards, we conclude that Contee’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed Contee’s
pro se claim and the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district
court’s judgment. We further deny Contee’s motion for
declaratory judgment and order. This court requires that
counsel inform Contee, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Contee 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
3
Contee. 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