United States v. Lonnie Addison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LONNIE ADDISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00175-NCT-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2013 Decided: July 25, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & TALCOTT, L.L.P.,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Addison appeals his conviction and 262-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006). On appeal, Addison’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 erred by denying his request for a
downward departure. Addison filed a pro se supplemental brief,
challenging the assessment of a criminal history point and
questioning whether the district court complied with Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure during the plea hearing.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Beginning our analysis with Addison’s pro se challenge
to the Rule 11 hearing, our review of the transcript reveals
that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 in
conducting the plea colloquy and committed no error warranting
correction on plain error review. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 526 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that, in the absence
of motion to withdraw guilty plea, review is for plain error);
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S 725, 732 (1991) (detailing plain
error standard). Thus, the district court did not err in
finding Addison’s guilty plea knowing and voluntary.
2
Turning to the sentencing challenges, we review a
sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). The
first step in this review requires us to ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the
selected sentence. Id.; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2009). If the sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a
sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d
288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
In his pro se supplemental brief, Addison challenges
the assessment of a criminal history point based on a
misdemeanor possession of marijuana conviction for which his
only penalty was a fine. The point did not affect Addison’s
criminal history category, which was determined by his status as
a career offender. In any event, the assessment of a criminal
history point was appropriate for the fine. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual §§ 4A1.1(c) & cmt. background (2011).
3
Counsel questions the district court’s denial of
Addison’s request for a downward departure. It is clear,
however, that the district court understood its power to depart
downward but made a reasoned decision not to do so. See United
States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008) (“We lack
the authority to review a sentencing court’s denial of a
downward departure unless the court failed to understand its
authority to do so”). Our thorough review of the record leads
us to conclude that Addison’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Addison, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Addison 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 Addison. 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