United States v. Qizhu Sun , 491 F. App'x 434 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
QIZHU SUN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00085-CCE-4)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Wallace, THE WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Qizhu Sun appeals from his convictions and 46-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to
commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. On
appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court’s
acceptance of Sun’s guilty plea was in compliance with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and whether Sun was properly sentenced. Sun was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, because Sun did not challenge the validity of
his guilty plea in the district court, we review only for plain
error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th
Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals that the district
court complied with the dictates of Rule 11 and committed no
error warranting correction on plain error review.
Second, we have reviewed Sun’s sentence and conclude
that it was both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
district court correctly calculated Sun’s Guidelines range,
without objection; heard argument on the appropriate sentence;
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. The court
granted the Government’s request for a downward departure
2
under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2011)
based on Sun’s substantial assistance and gave adequate
reasoning for the departure. Sun’s sentence was below the
bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, and Sun has failed to
overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
sentence. See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th
Cir. 2012).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Sun’s convictions and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Sun, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Sun 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 Sun. 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
3