United States v. Wright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY DALE WRIGHT, a/k/a Ant,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cr-01147-HMH-1)
Submitted: July 30, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dale Wright pled guilty, without a plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute and
distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm and ammunition
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). The district court sentenced Wright to a total of 168
months’ imprisonment, the low end of the applicable Guidelines
range. Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are
no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and whether the district court
committed plain error in sentencing Wright to the low end of the
applicable Guidelines range. Wright was notified of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
The Government elected not to file a responsive brief.
Initially, counsel questions whether the district
court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 but identifies
no error on the court’s part. As Wright did not seek to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or otherwise
preserve any alleged Rule 11 error by timely objection, review
by this court is for plain error. United States v. Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004); United States v. Martinez, 277
2
F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, the
defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was
plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993); United
States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009)
(stating defendant bears burden of establishing each of the
plain error requirements). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court committed no reversible error
in the Rule 11 hearing.
Counsel also questions whether the district court
committed plain error in sentencing Wright to the low end of the
applicable advisory Guidelines range. Appellate review of a
district court’s imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. at
51. “Procedural reasonableness evaluates the method used to
determine a defendant’s sentence,” United States v. Mendoza-
Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010), whereas,
“[s]ubstantive reasonableness examines the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied
the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)].” Id.3
This court must assess whether the district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered
the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50; see also United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation
must accompany every sentence.”); United States v. Carter, 564
F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). A sentence imposed within the
properly calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by
this court. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d at 217.
We have reviewed the record with these standards in
mind. Our examination leads us to conclude that Wright’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively sound. Therefore,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence.
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 Wright, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Wright 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
4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Wright.
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
5