US v. Eaglin
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMIL EAGLIN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00547-MBS)
Submitted: December 14, 2006
December 18, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley D. Ragsdale, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Emil Eaglin appeals from his conviction pursuant to a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and the resulting concurrent 235-month sentences.
Eaglin's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but addressing the validity of Eaglin's plea and sentence. Eaglin was informed of his right to file a pro se Because our review of
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm. We find that Eaglin's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Eaglin was properly advised of his rights, the The
offenses charged, and the maximum sentence for the offenses.
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 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970);
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We find that the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing 18 U.S.C.A.
factors before imposing the 235-month sentences.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
- 2 -
the sentence imposed is reasonable.
See United States v. Green,
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.) ("[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. affirm Eaglin's conviction and sentence. We therefore
This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court 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 We
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?