US v. Burnett Shackleford
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BURNETT TRIONE SHACKLEFORD, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00206-TLW-1)
May 29, 2009
June 19, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Burnett Trione Shackleford pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000). The district On v. no the
court sentenced Shackleford to 264 months' imprisonment. appeal, counsel 386 has U.S. filed 738 a brief pursuant that to Anders are
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Shackleford's reasonable. issues. guilty plea and whether its sentence is
Shackleford filed a pro se brief raising several
We affirm. Because Shackleford did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States Our review of
the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Shackleford's guilty plea and that the court's omissions did not affect Shackleford's substantial rights. Critically, the transcript reveals that the district
court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual 2
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). declined Further, Shackleford does not suggest that he would have to plead guilty had the district court's Rule 11
colloquy been more exacting. error.
Accordingly, we discern no plain
We review Shackleford's sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 586, 597 (2007). ensure that the Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
The first step in this review requires us to district court committed no significant
procedural error such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. then consider the substantive reasonableness of the Id. We
imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a within a properly calculated Guidelines range is
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 341 (2007);
United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court correctly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range and gave the parties an opportunity to 3
whatever court the
Shackleford, and sentenced
Shackleford within his advisory Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. that the district Under these circumstances, we conclude did not abuse its discretion in
Finally, after review of Shackleford's
pro se supplemental brief, we conclude it raises no meritorious issues for appeal. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance meritorious with the requirements for appeal. * of Anders, and we we find no the
district court's judgment.
This court requires that counsel
inform Shackleford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United that a States for be further filed, review. but If
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 of the motion was served on Shackleford. We dispense with oral argument because the
This case was held in abeyance for United States v. Antonio, 311 F. App'x 679 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). This court's decision in Antonio supports our analysis of Shackleford's case.
contentions the court
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?