United States v. Anthony Roberts ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY ROBERTS, a/k/a Noochie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00035-LMB-2)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Brian Donnelly, J. BRIAN DONNELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Owings, Kara Martin Traster,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Roberts appeals his 120-month sentence after
pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of
conspiracy to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), and
one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has examined
the record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning the validity of Roberts’ guilty plea and the
reasonableness of Roberts’ statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Roberts was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not file one. We affirm.
Because Roberts did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Roberts]
must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and
that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States
v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of
the record leads us to conclude that the district court complied
with Rule 11, and that Roberts’ guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary.
2
We also conclude that Roberts’ sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. 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). This review requires appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we
consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory 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. Finally, we review 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).
Here, the district court properly calculated Roberts’
Guidelines sentence, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and
sentenced Roberts to two consecutive sixty-month terms, the
statutory mandatory minimum on each count. We therefore
conclude that Roberts’ sentence is reasonable.
3
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 Roberts, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Roberts requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Roberts. 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
4