US v. Jamal Piles

Filing 920090903

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAL PILES, a/k/a Marty, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00270-WDQ-8)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided:

September 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur S. Cheslock, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Jamal Piles, a/k/a Marty, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Piles to 135 Piles' counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel,

however, asks this court to review the validity of Piles' guilty plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. Piles has not

filed a pro se supplemental brief and the Government has not filed a brief. Prior We affirm. to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court,

through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and

Cir. 1991). that the

voluntarily.

See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).

Because Piles did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is 2

reviewed for plain error. 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d "To establish plain error, [Piles]

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights." United Even if error Court]

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Piles satisfies within these [the requirements, Court's] "correction which of

the

remains

discretion,

[the

should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity Id. or public reputation marks of and judicial citation

proceedings." omitted). Our

(internal of the

quotation transcript

review

reveals

substantial

compliance with the requirements of Rule 11, and we conclude that Piles pled guilty knowingly and voluntarily. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we

first examine the sentence for "significant procedural error," including: "failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)

the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting failing Gall, to a sentence adequately S. Ct. at based on clearly chosen erroneous sentence facts, . . . or ." the

explain 597.

the

128

The 3

Court

then

"`consider[s]

substantive

reasonableness

of

the

sentence

imposed.'"

United

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). If the

sentence is within a properly calculated guidelines range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness on appellate review. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. See

2007);

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 246269 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness on appellate review for within-guidelines sentence). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

district court did not commit reversible procedural error in sentencing Piles, and that his within-guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable. 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 Piles, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further

If Piles 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 must state that a copy thereof

was served on Piles.

4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process.

AFFIRMED

5