US v. Marc Applewhite
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARC EDWIN APPLEWHITE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00336-NCT-1)
November 24, 2008
December 29, 2008
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Marc Edwin Applewhite appeals the twenty-seven month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2006) ("Count 7"), one count of possession of a forged security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) (2006) ("Count 9"), and the twenty-four month consecutive sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006) ("Count 8"). brief in accordance with Anders Applewhite's attorney filed a v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the calculation of Applewhite's criminal history and the reasonableness of his sentence. right to do so, Applewhite has Although advised of his to file a pro se
supplemental brief. Applewhite
Finding no reversible error, we affirm. first contends the district court
erroneously ascribed two criminal history points for convictions he did not sustain. Because Applewhite did not raise this issue Fed.
before the district court, our review is for plain error.
R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Applewhite provides no evidence suggesting the two
challenged convictions were improperly counted, and there is no basis in the record on which to find the district court
committed any error -- let alone plain error -- in calculating 2
basis for appeal. We reasonable. "[r]egardless of further The conclude Supreme the Applewhite's Court sentence has sentence was that, or
outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard." United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Gall v.
Appellate courts are Id. at
charged with reviewing sentences for reasonableness. 594, 597. the
Reasonableness review requires consideration of both and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
Id. at 597. In determining whether a sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we first assess whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory Guidelines range. 596-97. to Id. at
We must then consider whether the district court failed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and any
arguments presented by the parties, selected a sentence based on "clearly erroneous facts," or failed to sufficiently explain the selected sentence. F.3d 468, 473 (4th Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley, 511 Cir. 2007). Finally, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, "taking into account the `totality of the circumstances.'" (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). 3 Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 We afford sentences that
presumption of reasonableness, see id., a presumption permitted by the Supreme Court. 2459, 2462 (2007). The district court properly calculated Applewhite's Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
sentencing range under the Guidelines * and invited counsel to make any relevant argument pursuant to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Applewhite After the hearing counsel's to arguments, and permitting the
§ 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Applewhite to a total of fifty-one calculated reveals no months' imprisonment, range. or which As our is within of in the properly record
sentence, we conclude Applewhite cannot overcome the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his sentence. S. Ct. at 2459, 2462. See Rita, 127
The district court calculated that Applewhite's total adjusted offense level for Counts 7 and 9 was fourteen, and that he had four criminal history points. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 2B1.1(a)(1)(B), (b)(1)(F) (2007). Thus, with a category III criminal history, Applewhite's advisory Guidelines range on Counts 7 and 9 was twenty-one to twentyseven months' imprisonment. USSG ch. 5, pt. A, sentencing table. Applewhite also faced a mandatory twenty-four month consecutive sentence on Count 8. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); USSG § 2B1.6(a).
Although not raised by counsel, we further note there was no infirmity in Applewhite's conviction. The district court
fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in conducting Applewhite's plea hearing. The district court
advised Applewhite regarding his rights under federal law, the nature and elements of the charges to which he was pleading guilty, and the applicable statutory mandatory minimum, The court
statutory maximum, and period of supervised release.
also questioned Applewhite to ensure he was competent to plead guilty. Applewhite informed the court that, prior to signing
the plea agreement, he had discussed it with his attorney, with whom he was satisfied. The district court further accepted the There simply
written factual basis of Applewhite's guilty plea. was no Rule 11 error. In entirety of accordance the we record affirm with and the Anders, found district we no have
further deny counsel's motion to withdraw from representation. We require that counsel inform Applewhite, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If Applewhite believes requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that 5
a copy thereof was served on Applewhite.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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?