US v. Antonio Scott
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO LAMAR SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROY ADAM DAVENPORT, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:08-cr-00215-HFF-2; 6:08-cr-00215-HFF-1).
April 16, 2009
April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina; James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Co-defendants Antonio Lamar Scott and Troy Adam
Davenport, Jr., pled guilty to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). They were both sentenced to 117 months' imprisonment On appeal, their
and a five-year term of supervised release.
respective attorneys have filed briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in their view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. However, Scott's
counsel questions the adequacy of Scott's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, and Davenport's attorney challenges the reasonableness of Davenport's sentence. Scott and Davenport were advised of
their right to file pro se supplemental briefs but have not done so. The Government has declined to file reply briefs in both Finding no error, we affirm. Scott's counsel raises as a potential issue the
adequacy of the plea colloquy in light of the district court's failure to inform Scott that he had a right to persist in his plea of not guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B). Because
Scott did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground raised on appeal, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 3 2002) United States v. Martinez, (discussing standard of
Our careful review of the record on appeal convinces
us that the district court's omission did not affect Scott's substantial rights. 400, 402 (4th Cir. See id.; United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 1995) (discussing factors courts should
consider in determining whether substantial rights affected in decision to plead guilty). Davenport's Davenport's sentence. counsel We questions review a the reasonableness sentence of for
reasonableness, using the abuse of discretion standard. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). Davenport's reasonable. properly sentence is both procedurally
We conclude that and substantively
In this regard, we note that the district court Davenport's Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence). We have examined the entire record in these cases in accordance meritorious judgments. clients, Court of in with the requirements appeal. requires of Anders, and we we find no
Accordingly, that to counsel
affirm inform the
of their States
right for 4
Supreme If the
respective client requests that a petition be filed, but 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 the client. We 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
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?