US v. Charles Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00454-WO-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998538485] [10-4214]

US v. Charles Richardson

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4214

Document: 32

Date Filed: 03/07/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4214

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD RICHARDSON, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00454-WO-2)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 7, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4214

Document: 32

Date Filed: 03/07/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Richardson pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. him to 110 months' imprisonment. brief in accordance stating with Anders in The district court sentenced Richardson's counsel filed a v. California, view, 386 U.S. are 738 no the

(1967),

that, for

counsel's but

there

meritorious district sentence.

issues

appeal, its

questioning by imposing

whether a

court

abused

discretion

variance

Richardson was advised of his right to file a pro se Finding no reversible

supplemental brief, but has not done so. error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Our review of the

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).

transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting

Richardson's guilty plea.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 Accordingly, we affirm

F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Richardson's conviction. We have reviewed Richardson's

sentence

and

conclude

that it was properly calculated and is reasonable.

See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 The district court followed

Case: 10-4214

Document: 32

Date Filed: 03/07/2011

Page: 3

the

necessary

procedural treated the

steps

in

sentencing guidelines

Richardson, as advisory, guidelines (2006)

appropriately properly range,

sentencing

calculated weighed

and the

considered relevant 18

the

applicable §

and

U.S.C.

3553(a)

factors in relation to Richardson's criminal conduct and his individual circumstances. We conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the variance sentence of 110 months. Engle, 592 F.3d See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (holding that "due

deference" is given to the district court's decision to impose variance sentence), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, This court requires that counsel inform Richardson, in of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review.

If Richardson 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 We dispense

state that a copy thereof was served on Richardson.

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 process. AFFIRMED 3