United States v. Larry King ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY SHANE KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00454-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015
Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Shane King appeals the district court’s judgment
sentencing him to 151 months of imprisonment pursuant to his
conviction for conspiring to manufacture quantities of a mixture
and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). King’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, as well as King’s pro se supplemental brief, and have
found no meritorious issues. Before accepting King’s guilty
plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy,
satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring
that King’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 district court made no
significant procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and King has not rebutted our
appellate presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable. See United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform King, in
2
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If King 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 King. 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