US v. Burnett Shackleford

Filing 920090619

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4884

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)

Submitted:

May 29, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

California, meritorious

(1967),

stating

there

issues

for

appeal,

but

questioning

whether

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

basis

and

that with

Shackleford an

entered of

the the

plea

knowingly

and See

voluntarily

understanding

consequences.

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

sentence

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

sentence

reasonable.

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

argue

for

whatever court the

sentence heard

they

deemed

appropriate. from

The

district considered

also

allocution

Shackleford, and sentenced

relevant

§ 3553(a)

factors,

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

court

sentencing Shackleford.

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

issues

Accordingly,

affirm

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

Shackleford

requests

petition

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 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.

*

4

facts

and

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately argument

presented not

in aid

the the

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

5