United States v. Dean , 404 F. App'x 709 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4535
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES L. DEAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:09-cr-00893-HFF-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James L. Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court
sentenced him to eighty-seven months imprisonment. Dean’s
counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Dean’s
sentence was reasonable. Dean was advised of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the
transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the
district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Dean’s
guilty plea. The court ensured that Dean understood the charge
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 Dean’s conviction.
We have also reviewed Dean’s sentence and determined
that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed
2
was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.
2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Dean, appropriately treated the sentencing
guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the
applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178,
193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of
reasonableness to within guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Dean, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Dean 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 Dean. 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