United States v. McDonald , 284 F. App'x 26 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE KEVIN MCDONALD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00639-RBH-1)
Submitted: July 1, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lawrence Kevin McDonald
pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008), and possession with intent to
distribute a quantity of cocaine (Count 3), in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced McDonald
to twenty-seven months of imprisonment on Count 3 and to a
consecutive sixty-month sentence on Count 2, for a total of
eighty-seven months. McDonald’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel
questions whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting McDonald’s guilty plea and whether the district
court erred in sentencing McDonald. McDonald was informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We
affirm.
Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
plea hearing but concludes that there were no deficiencies in the
district court’s Rule 11 inquiries. Our careful review of the
record convinces us that the district court fully complied with the
mandates of Rule 11 in accepting McDonald’s guilty plea and ensured
that McDonald entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that
- 2 -
the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Counsel next questions whether the district court erred
by refusing to sentence McDonald below the advisory guideline range
established for Count 3. We review the sentence imposed by the
district court for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing McDonald, properly calculating the guidelines
range and considering that recommendation in conjunction with the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.
2008). See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We also find that the
district court meaningfully articulated its refusal to vary from
the guideline range and to sentence McDonald at the bottom of the
range. See id.; Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-
Guidelines sentence). Thus, we conclude that the sentence is
reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
- 3 -
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 the client. 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
- 4 -