United States v. Ryshon Grate ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5056
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYSHON PETOEZ GRATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00369-RBH-2)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 12, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryshon Petoez Grate pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to bank robbery and use of a firearm during a
crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2113(a), (d)
(2006), and was sentenced to a total term of eighty-four months
of imprisonment. On appeal, Grate’s attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Grate’s guilty plea and whether the
court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence.
Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, Grate has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
We conclude, based on our review of the transcript of
Grate’s guilty plea hearing, that the district court fully
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Grate’s guilty plea. The
court ensured that Grate understood the charges against him and
the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea
knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an
independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119–20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm
Grate’s conviction.
2
We review a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.First, this court must assess whether the district court
properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). We also must consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the
totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court correctly calculated and
considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from
counsel and allocution from Grate. The court considered
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained that the within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of the offense. Further, Grate offers no grounds
to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines
sentence of eighty-four months imprisonment is substantively
3
reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Grate.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Grate, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Grate 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 Grate. 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