United States v. Catrina Everhart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4673
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATRINA COLLEEN EVERHART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00004-GMG-RWT-2)
Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Rice, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Catrina Colleen Everhart appeals her conviction and the
sixty-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
On appeal, Everhart’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 in accepting Everhart’s guilty plea and whether the
sentence is reasonable. Everhart was advised of her right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding
no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Everhart first questions whether the district court erred
in accepting her 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. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532
(4th Cir. 2002). Thus, the court did not err in accepting
Everhart’s knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
2
Everhart next questions the reasonableness of the sentence. *
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district
court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as
failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Once we have determined that
there is no procedural error, we must consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the
totality of the circumstances.” Id. If the sentence imposed is
within the appropriate Guidelines range, we consider it
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d
583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013). The presumption may be rebutted by a
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) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Upon review, we conclude that the district court
committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing the
sixty-month sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577
(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.
*
We decline to sua sponte enforce Everhart’s waiver of
appellate rights in the plea agreement. See United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
3
Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008) (a statutory
mandatory minimum sentence is “per se reasonable”).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Everhart, in writing, of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Everhart requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Everhart. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4