United States v. Andre Valentino Pierre , 610 F. App'x 262 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-4051
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ANDRE VALENTINO PIERRE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
    District Judge. (3:13-cr-00334-FDW-1)
    Submitted:   July 20, 2015                 Decided:   July 24, 2015
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL
    DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andre Valentino Pierre pled guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.
    § 2113(a) (2012), and was sentenced to 151 months in prison.                He
    now appeals.      His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), raising one issue but
    stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.                Pierre
    was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
    has not filed such a brief.        We affirm.
    Our review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
    proceeding discloses that the district court fully complied with
    the Rule.      Pierre admitted his guilt and acknowledged that the
    Factual Basis offered in support of the plea was correct. Finally,
    the record establishes that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily
    entered.
    Pierre’s correctly calculated Guidelines range was 151-188
    months.      At sentencing, counsel asked for a sentence below this
    range. As counsel acknowledges in the Anders brief, the sentencing
    transcript refutes Pierre’s present claim that the district court
    did    not   address   counsel’s   arguments    in   favor   of   a   downward
    variance.      Although the court specifically rejected the request
    for a variance, the court found that a sentence at the low end of
    Pierre’s Guidelines range was appropriate. We accord a presumption
    of    reasonableness   to   Pierre’s   within-Guidelines     sentence,     see
    United States v. Abu Ali, 
    528 F.3d 210
    , 261 (4th Cir. 2008), and
    2
    find that Pierre failed to rebut this presumption.      See United
    States v. Montes-Pineda, 
    445 F.3d 375
    , 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
    in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.   We
    therefore affirm.   This court requires that counsel inform Pierre,
    in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
    United States for further review.      If Pierre 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 of the motion was served on Pierre.     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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-4051

Citation Numbers: 610 F. App'x 262

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024