United States v. Mack , 241 F. App'x 87 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4515
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLESHON JOAQUIN MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00582-TLW)
Submitted: July 9, 2007 Decided: July 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Cleshon Joaquin Mack pled
guilty to two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).
The district court granted the government’s motion for a downward
departure from the thirty-two-year sentence and sentenced Mack to
twenty-four years in prison. Mack timely appealed. Mack’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), challenging the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
and the extent of the district court’s downward departure. Mack
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
he did not file one.
Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
plea hearing, but does not specify any deficiencies in the district
court’s Rule 11 inquiries. Because Mack did not move in the
district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard). Our
careful review of the record convinces us that the district court
fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Mack’s
guilty plea and ensured that Mack entered his plea knowingly and
voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an independent
factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
- 2 -
Counsel also questions the extent of the district court’s
downward departure. This court does not have “jurisdiction to
review the extent of the district court’s downward departure,
except in instances in which the departure decision resulted in a
sentence imposed in violation of the law or resulted from an
incorrect application of the Guidelines.” United States v. Hill,
70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 1995). The court considered the factors
in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) and explained its
reasons for imposing its sentence. We do not find under these
circumstances that Mack’s sentence was unreasonable. United
States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 2054 (2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm Mack’s conviction and sentence. 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
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
- 3 -
materials before the Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -