United States v. Tadlock ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOEL WAYNE TADLOCK,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00670-TLW-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 16, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Joel Wayne Tadlock pled
guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to
distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams
or more of a mixture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006) (“Count One”), and
knowingly using and carrying firearms during and in relation to,
and possessing firearms in furtherance of, a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (“Count
Three”). The district court sentenced Tadlock to 324 months’
imprisonment, consisting of 264 months on Count One and a
consecutive term of sixty months on Count Three.
Tadlock’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking
this court to review Tadlock’s convictions and sentence. Though
advised of his right to do so, Tadlock has declined to file a
pro se supplemental brief.
Counsel first concludes there were no deficiencies in
the district court’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
hearing. After a careful review of the record, we agree. The
district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule
11 in accepting Tadlock’s guilty plea, ensuring Tadlock entered
his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was
2
supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v.
Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62 (2002); United States v. Mastrapa, 509
F.3d 652, 659-60 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm
Tadlock’s convictions.
Counsel next acknowledges that Tadlock’s sentence is
reasonable, both procedurally and substantively. We agree.
We review the sentence imposed by the district court
for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). Our review of
the record leads us to conclude the district court followed the
necessary procedural steps in sentencing Tadlock, properly
calculating the Guidelines range and considering that
recommendation in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Accordingly, we will afford Tadlock’s within-Guidelines sentence
a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d
216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (upholding rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
3
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 the client. 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
4