United States v. Andrew Atkinson , 514 F. App'x 403 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4812
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDREW JULIAN ATKINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00063-NCT-2)
Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: March 27, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Andrew
Julian Atkinson pled guilty to attempted armed bank robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2006), and carrying and using, by brandishing,
a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). He received an aggregate
sentence of sixty months in prison. Atkinson now appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Atkinson was notified of his
right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed such a brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Our review of the transcript of Atkinson’s Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing discloses that the district court
substantially complied with the Rule. Further, the transcript
establishes that Atkinson entered his plea knowingly and
voluntarily and that there was a factual basis for the plea. We
therefore affirm the convictions.
Further, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, the sentence is
procedurally reasonable. In this regard, the court correctly
calculated Atkinson’s Guidelines range, considered the relevant
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained
2
the sentence, which encompassed both a downward departure and
the court’s grant of the Government’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006)
motion based on Atkinson’s substantial assistance. Second, our
review of the sentencing transcript establishes that, based on
the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is free of
substantive error.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Atkinson’s convictions and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Atkinson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Atkinson 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 Atkinson.
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