United States v. William Satterwhite , 552 F. App'x 261 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4599
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ISOM SATTERWHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:12-cr-00332-CMC-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Isom Satterwhite appeals his conviction and
the 180-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to
a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one
year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012).
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the
district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11 in accepting Satterwhite’s guilty plea, whether Satterwhite
was properly classified as an armed career criminal, and whether
the sentence is reasonable. Satterwhite was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed
one. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.
Because Satterwhite did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing
for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Satterwhite] must
show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that
the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if
Satterwhite satisfies these requirements, “correction of the
error remains within [the court’s] discretion, which [the court]
2
should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s]
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting
Satterwhite’s guilty plea, which was entered knowingly and
voluntarily.
This court reviews a sentence for procedural and
substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In
evaluating procedural reasonableness, this court considers
whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence supported by the
record, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall,
552 U.S. at 49-51. If the sentence is free of procedural error,
the court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, taking into
account the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. This court presumes that a sentence within or below a
properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir.
2012). Moreover, a statutorily required sentence is per se
3
reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir. 2008).
A defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence as an
armed career criminal when he violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug
offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2012). A violent felony is a
conviction punishable by more than one year of imprisonment for
a crime that “(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of another;
or (2) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of
explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). In this case, the presentence
investigation report included three prior convictions of
burglary in South Carolina and one conviction for strong-arm
robbery in Florida as predicate convictions for violent
felonies. We have previously held that convictions under South
Carolina’s burglary statute are violent felonies under § 924(e).
United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2010).
Thus, Satterwhite was correctly classified as an armed career
criminal. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
The sentence is also substantively reasonable, as the
district court could not have imposed less than the statutory
4
mandatory minimum sentence, which is also within the properly
calculated Guidelines range. United States v. Robinson, 404
F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 2005) (absent government motion for
departure for substantial assistance under § 3553(e), district
court has no discretion to sentence below statutory minimum).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Satterwhite’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Satterwhite,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Satterwhite 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 Satterwhite.
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
5