United States v. Alton Tribble

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALTON TRIBBLE, a/k/a Rizz, a/k/a Hot Rod,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00062-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Michael Frazier, FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C., Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alton Tribble appeals his conviction and sixty-three-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession
with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2012). On appeal, Tribble’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether the district court: (1) fully complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Tribble’s
guilty plea; (2) misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines to
Tribble’s sentence; and (3) erred in denying Tribble’s pro se
motion to disallow the use of relevant conduct at sentencing.
Tribble was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file one. Finding no meritorious grounds for
appeal, we affirm.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Tribble agreed to waive
indictment and pled guilty to a single-count information,
charging him with possession with intent to distribute heroin,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). Tribble first
questions whether the district court erred in accepting his
guilty plea. Our review of the plea hearing reveals that the
district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea colloquy and
committed no error warranting correction on plain error review.
2
See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir.
2002). Thus, the court did not err in accepting Tribble’s
knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
Tribble next challenges the court’s application of the
Sentencing Guidelines in fashioning his sixty-three-month
sentence. Our review of the record reveals that the court’s
factual findings were supported by the presentence report. The
court also correctly calculated Tribble’s criminal history
category and total offense level in determining the Guidelines
range. Moreover, the court heard arguments from counsel on the
§ 3553(a) factors, adequately explained its reasoning, and
provided the individualized assessment required by Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007), in sentencing Tribble to
the low-end of the range. Thus, the court did not commit
reversible error in applying the Guidelines.
We next turn to Tribble’s challenge to the district
court’s denial of his pro se motion to disallow the use of
relevant conduct at sentencing. We have long held that “[t]he
type of information to be considered by a sentencing judge
is . . . unlimited,” provided that such information is reliable.
United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d 380, 381 (4th Cir. 1991); see
United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“[A] sentencing court may give weight to any relevant
information before it, . . . provided that the information has
3
sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.”).
The information that the court relied upon in determining the
drug quantity attributable to Tribble was sufficiently reliable
and accurate. Thus, the court properly denied Tribble’s motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Tribble, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Tribble 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 Tribble. 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
4