US v. Brandon Haskell
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON HASKELL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00147-PMD-1)
October 28, 2009
November 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Charleston, South Carolina, for Phillips, Assistant United States Carolina, for Appellee.
Federal Public Defender, Appellant. Peter Thomas Attorney, Charleston, South
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Brandon agreement to Haskell a pled in guilty pursuant of a to a plea and The of
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). district court a sentenced sentence On Haskell in to a seventy-month of the has term
advisory filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel questions, however, whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Haskell's plea and whether the sentence is reasonable. Haskell was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the plea hearing but identifies no deficiencies in the district court's Rule 11 inquiries. Our careful review of the record
convinces us that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Haskell's guilty plea and
ensured that Haskell entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
sentence is reasonable.
We review a sentence for reasonableness Gall v. United States, (2007). the Id. This review and
under an abuse of discretion standard. 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, of 597
substantive reasonableness of a sentence.
whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, this court must first assess whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory guidelines range. Id. at 596-97. This
court then must consider whether the district court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed the
arguments presented by the parties, and made "an individualized assessment based on the facts presented." Gall, 128 S. Ct. at
597; United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Finally, sentence. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in this case. we review the substantive reasonableness of the
United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir.
Turning to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we presume that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 347 (2007); United States v. Smith, 566 F.3d 410, 414 (4th Cir. 2009). Applying the presumption 3 of reasonableness to
rebut on appeal, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 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 her client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. filed, but counsel If the client requests that a petition be 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 We dispense with oral
a copy thereof was served on the client.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 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?