United States v. John Blanton, II , 537 F. App'x 199 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN ALVIN BLANTON, II,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00194-CCE-1)
Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: August 2, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Alvin Blanton, II, appeals his convictions and
184-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and possession of a
stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006).
Blanton’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Blanton was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following
a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Before accepting Blanton’s guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Blanton’s plea was knowing
and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court subsequently followed all necessary procedural steps
in sentencing Blanton, properly calculating his Guidelines
range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and
the parties’ arguments, and providing an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Blanton’s within-Guidelines
sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he
2
has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Blanton, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Blanton 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
Blanton.
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