eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2008-06

United States v. Hagood , 280 F. App'x 289 ( 2008 )


Menu:
 
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4855
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRELL DEON HAGOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cr-01263-HMH)
Submitted:   May 29, 2008                     Decided:   June 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.    Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrell Deon Hagood appeals from his conviction and 210-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being in
possession of a firearm after previously having been convicted of
a felony offense.    Hagood’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the reasonableness
of the sentence.     Hagood was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has declined to do so.          Our review of the
record   discloses   no   reversible   error;    accordingly,     we    affirm
Hagood’s conviction and sentence.
We find that Hagood’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11.     Hagood was properly advised of his rights, the
elements of the offense charged, and the mandatory minimum and
maximum sentences for the offense.       The court also determined that
there was an independent factual basis for the plea and that the
plea was not coerced or influenced by any promises.               See United
States v. DeFusco,
    949 F.2d 114
    , 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).               We find
that the plea was valid.
Appellate courts review sentences imposed by district
courts   for   reasonableness,   applying       an   abuse   of   discretion
standard.    Gall v. United States,
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 597 (2007); see
also United States v. Pauley,
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
- 2 -
When sentencing a defendant, a district court must: (1) properly
calculate   the     guideline    range;    (2)     treat   the   guidelines    as
advisory; (3) consider the factors set out in
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a)
(West 2000 & Supp. 2007); and (4) explain its reasons for selecting
a sentence.       Pauley,
    511 F.3d at 473
    .          While the district court
must   consider    the   various   §    3553(a)    factors    and   explain    its
sentence, it need not explicitly reference § 3553 or discuss every
factor on the record.      United States v. Johnson,
    445 F.3d 339
    , 345
(4th Cir. 2006).      In the Fourth Circuit, “[a] sentence within the
proper Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Allen,
    491 F.3d 178
    , 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see also
Rita v. United States,
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    , 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-
guideline sentence).          This presumption can only be rebutted by
showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors.       United States v. Montes-Pineda,
    445 F.3d 375
    ,
379 (4th Cir. 2006).
The    district    court    followed    the    necessary   steps    in
sentencing Hagood, and we find no abuse of discretion in its
sentence of 210 months of imprisonment.                We have reviewed the
record in this case in accordance with Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal.                 We therefore affirm Hagood’s
conviction and sentence.        This court requires that counsel inform
his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
- 3 -
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 materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -