United States v. T' Antae Little , 457 F. App'x 219 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4247
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    T’ ANTAE DEON LITTLE, a/k/a Tantae Deon Little,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00049-RLV-DCK-7)
    Submitted:   November 28, 2011            Decided:   December 8, 2011
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    T’ Ante Deon Little pled guilty, pursuant to a written
    plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to
    possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of
    21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011).                       The
    district court accepted Little’s plea and sentenced him to 240
    months in prison.          Little timely appealed.          On appeal, Little’s
    counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), stating that he has reviewed the record and found no
    meritorious     issues      for    appeal.       However,    counsel      questions
    whether the district court erred in accepting Little’s guilty
    plea   and    whether      the    district     court’s     chosen     sentence   is
    reasonable.      Little, informed of his right to file a pro se
    supplemental brief, has not done so.              The Government declined to
    file a responsive brief.
    First,   counsel      questions     whether    the    district   court
    complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
    Little’s guilty plea.             “Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a
    trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform
    the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature
    of   the   charges    to   which    the   plea   is   offered,      any   mandatory
    minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty,” and the various
    rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.                    United States v.
    DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 116 (4th Cir. 1991); see Fed. R. Crim. P.
    2
    11(b). “In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11,
    this court should accord deference to the trial court’s decision
    as    to   how    best        to     conduct     the       mandated            colloquy          with     the
    defendant.”         
    DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116
    .
    Because Little did not move in the district court to
    withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
    plain error.           United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 527 (4th
    Cir.    2002).          We     have     reviewed       the       transcript                of    the      plea
    colloquy and determined that the magistrate judge complied with
    the mandates of Rule 11.                   In accepting Little’s guilty plea, the
    district court ensured that Little’s guilty plea was entered
    knowingly        and        voluntarily        and     supported               by     an    independent
    factual     basis.           See     
    DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116
    ,       119-20.          We
    therefore affirm Little’s conviction.
    Little          also     questions           the       reasonableness                  of   his
    sentence.              We     review       a     district            court’s           sentence           for
    reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.                                                Gall v.
    United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007); see also United States v.
    Pauley, 
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007).                                       The first step in
    this       review       requires           the       court           to        assess           procedural
    reasonableness by ensuring that the district court committed no
    significant       procedural          errors,        such       as    improperly            calculating
    the    Guidelines           range     or    failing        to    consider             the       18    U.S.C.
    § 3553(a) (2006) factors.                   United States v. Boulware, 
    604 F.3d 3
    832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010).                We then consider the substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
    totality    of    the   circumstances.           
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    .     We
    presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines
    range is reasonable.            United States v. Allen, 
    491 F.3d 178
    , 193
    (4th Cir. 2007).         Our thorough review of the record assures us
    that the sentence is procedurally reasonable.                          Substantively,
    Little’s receipt of the statutorily mandated minimum sentence
    renders     his   sentence      per   se    reasonable.          United       States   v.
    Farrior, 
    535 F.3d 210
    , 224 (4th Cir. 2008).                           Accordingly, we
    affirm Little’s sentence.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm the judgment below.                      This court requires
    that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the right to petition
    the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.                             If
    Little 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
    Little.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal   contentions       are    adequately       presented      in     the   materials
    4
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    5