United States v. Crenshaw , 242 F. App'x 66 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5271
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL JAMES CRENSHAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:05-cr-1278)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 6, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell Barnes Cauthen III, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel James Crenshaw pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to possessing a firearm and ammunition, having been
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) & (e), and possession of
a firearm silencer not registered to him in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. The district court sentenced him to
fifteen months in prison. Crenshaw appealed, and counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
finding no meritorious issues for appeal but discussing the
adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness
of his sentence. Crenshaw was informed of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief; however, he has not done so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Because Crenshaw did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that
“plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of
forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). We conclude the district
court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting
Crenshaw’s guilty plea.
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), this
court reviews a sentence to determine whether the district court
has correctly calculated the advisory guidelines range and has
considered the range, as well as the factors set out § 3553(a), and
whether the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401
F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). A sentence within the properly
calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). We conclude Crenshaw’s sentence was
presumptively reasonable because the district court sentenced him
to the lowest sentence within the correctly calculated guidelines
range and below the statutory maximum after considering the factors
in § 3553(a).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Crenshaw’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Crenshaw, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Crenshaw 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 Crenshaw.
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
- 3 -