United States v. Colin Matthew Byrnes ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-4278
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    COLIN MATTHEW BYRNES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cr-00152-WO-1)
    Submitted: November 27, 2018                                 Decided: December 7, 2018
    Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant Federal Public
    Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Eric Lloyd Iverson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Colin Matthew Byrnes seeks to appeal his conviction and 180-month sentence,
    imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, for the transportation of child pornography in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2552A(a)(1), (b)(1) (2012). Byrnes’s attorney has filed a brief
    pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that there are no
    meritorious issues for appeal. Byrnes also filed a supplemental pro se brief. We affirm.
    Byrnes did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, and, thus,
    we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 527 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate
    “that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial
    rights. Even if an appellant satisfies these elements, we may exercise our discretion to
    correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
    judicial proceedings.” United States v. Strieper, 
    666 F.3d 288
    , 295 (4th Cir. 2012)
    (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).        Because we detect no
    reversible error in the district court’s Rule 11 plea colloquy, we affirm Byrnes’s
    conviction.
    We review Byrnes’s sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness
    “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41
    (2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error,
    such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [Sentencing] Guidelines range,
    . . . failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain the
    chosen sentence[.]” Id. at 51; see 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) (2012). If there is no significant
    2
    procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, taking into
    account “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
    Guidelines range.” Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    . We presume that a sentence within or below a
    properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable, and a defendant can rebut this
    presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
    the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306 (4th Cir.
    2014).
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not
    err in its imposition of Byrnes’s sentence. The district court properly calculated the
    advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing
    the sentence. Furthermore, Byrnes has not made the showing necessary to rebut the
    presumption of reasonableness that we afford his below-Guidelines-range sentence. And
    there has been no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, which must conclusively
    appear on the face of the record to be cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v.
    Faulls, 
    821 F.3d 502
    , 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
    have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Byrnes’s conviction
    and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Byrnes, in writing, of the right to
    petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Byrnes 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 Byrnes.
    3
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-4278

Filed Date: 12/7/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021