US v. Randal Antoine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00827-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998548123].. [10-4378]

US v. Randal Antoine

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4378

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDAL ANTOINE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00827-CMC-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2011

Decided:

March 18, 2011

Before KING and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4378

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Randal Antoine appeals his conviction and ninety-sixmonth sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty plea to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2006), and falsely representing a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006). Antoine's counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Antoine's guilty plea was valid and whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Antoine was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. We affirm.

Because Antoine did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d "To establish plain error, [Antoine]

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights." v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). the record leads us to conclude that the United States Our review of district court

substantially complied with Rule 11 and that Antoine's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We also conclude that Antoine's sentence is both

procedurally and substantively reasonable. 2

We review a sentence

Case: 10-4378

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 3

for abuse of discretion. (2007). that the

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

The first step in this review requires us to ensure district court committed no significant procedural

error. 2008).

United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. Significant procedural errors include "`failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range'" or "`failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.'" United States v.

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). the We then consider the substantive reasonableness of taking into account the totality of the

sentence,

circumstances.

United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, A sentence within the guidelines range is presumption of reasonableness. Rita v.

216 (4th Cir. 2010). accorded an appellate

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007). the record and conclude that Antoine's

We have reviewed within-guidelines

sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. 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 Antoine in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Antoine 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 3

Case: 10-4378

Document: 24

Date Filed: 03/18/2011

Page: 4

representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because

was served on Antoine.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

4