United States v. Lyndon Dunham , 548 F. App'x 90 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4456
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LYNDON DUNHAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.    W. Earl Britt,
    Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00166-BR-1)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2013             Decided: December 19, 2013
    Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark D. Stewart, BURCH LAW OFFICE, Greenville, North Carolina,
    for Appellant.   Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lyndon     Dunham      pleaded       guilty      pursuant      to    a    written
    plea agreement to Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting, in
    violation    of    18      U.S.C.    §§ 1951,         2    (2012),    and     possessing          a
    firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and
    abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2 (2012).
    Dunham received a sentence of forty-one months’ imprisonment for
    the robbery, followed by a consecutive eighty-four months for
    the    firearm    offense.          On    appeal,         counsel    has    filed      a    brief
    pursuant     to     Anders     v.        California,         
    386 U.S. 738
         (1967),
    certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
    questioning the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 11 and the reasonableness of the sentence.
    Dunham was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
    brief, but has not done so.                 The Government declined to file a
    brief.     We affirm.
    Because Dunham did not move in the district court to
    withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for
    plain error.       United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th
    Cir.    2002).        To    prevail       under       this    standard,       Dunham            must
    establish that an error occurred, was plain, and affected his
    substantial       rights.      Henderson         v.       United    States,      133       S.    Ct.
    1121, 1126 (2013); United States v. Massenburg, 
    564 F.3d 337
    ,
    342-43 (4th Cir. 2009).                  Our review of the record establishes
    2
    that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11’s
    requirements,       ensuring       that       Dunham’s       plea        was   knowing     and
    voluntary.
    We review Dunham’s sentence for reasonableness, “under
    a   deferential      abuse-of-discretion                standard.”        Gall     v.   United
    States,     
    552 U.S. 38
    ,        41     (2007).         This        review      requires
    consideration        of         both        the        procedural        and     substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence.                        
    Id. at 51;
    United States v.
    Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 575 (4th Cir. 2010).                              After determining
    whether    the     district      court       correctly      calculated         the    advisory
    Guidelines range, we must decide whether the court considered
    the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, analyzed the arguments
    presented     by     the    parties,          and       sufficiently        explained     the
    selected sentence.          
    Lynn, 592 F.3d at 575-76
    ; United States v.
    Carter, 
    564 F.3d 325
    , 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
    Once we have determined that the sentence is free of
    procedural    error,       we    consider         its    substantive       reasonableness,
    “tak[ing]    into     account          the    totality       of     the    circumstances.”
    
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    .             If the sentence is within the appropriate
    Guidelines range, we presume that the sentence is reasonable.
    United States v. Abu Ali, 
    528 F.3d 210
    , 261 (4th Cir. 2008).
    Such   a     presumption          is        rebutted       only     if     the       defendant
    demonstrates “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
    against the § 3553(a) factors.”                       United States v. Montes-Pineda,
    3
    
    445 F.3d 375
    ,       379    (4th    Cir.    2006)      (internal    quotation       marks
    omitted).
    We conclude that the district court committed neither
    procedural       nor      substantive       error      in     sentencing      Dunham.      The
    court       correctly       calculated          and   considered        as    advisory     the
    applicable       Guidelines           range.          After    hearing       argument     from
    defense       counsel      for    a     downward      variance    and    allocution      from
    Dunham,       the     district          court    explained       that    the     Guidelines
    adequately accounted for Dunham’s lack of criminal history and
    that    a    within-Guidelines            sentence       therefore      was    appropriate.
    Counsel does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on
    appeal that Dunham’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
    reasonable,         and    our     review       reveals       none.      Accordingly,       we
    conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    sentencing Dunham.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.       We therefore affirm Dunham’s conviction and sentence.
    This court requires that counsel inform Dunham, in writing, of
    the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.             If Dunham 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
    4
    representation.   Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
    was served on Dunham.
    AFFIRMED
    5