US v. Leon Bessant, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00136-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998536860] [10-4380]
US v. Leon Bessant, Jr.
Doc. 0
Case: 10-4380
Document: 34
Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4380
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEON BESSANT, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00136-WO-1)
Submitted:
February 3, 2011
Decided:
March 3, 2011
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-4380
Document: 34
Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Leon Bessant, Jr., appeals from his conviction and
sixty-month sentence following a guilty plea to two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2010).
On appeal,
Bessant's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). no meritorious issues for Counsel states that there are but questions whether the
appeal,
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Bessant's guilty plea and whether the district court erred in sentencing Bessant. Bessant was advised of his right to file a We affirm. whether the district court
pro se brief, but has not done so. Bessant first questions
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, by sufficiently informing Bessant that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five
years' imprisonment on both counts. move in the district court to
Because Bessant did not his guilty plea, we
withdraw
review any error in the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
United
Our review of the appellate record convinces us that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Bessant's guilty plea. In doing so, the district
court properly informed Bessant of the nature of the charges and penalties he faced, explicitly stating that he faced a term of 2
Case: 10-4380
Document: 34
Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Page: 3
imprisonment district voluntary
of
not
less that
than the a
five
years. plea
Moreover, was knowing See
the and
court and
ensured
guilty factual
supported
by
basis.
United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm his conviction. Bessant erred in imposing reasonableness, also questions whether the district court
sentence. applying an
This court reviews a sentence for abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). This
review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant's advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. specifically questions whether the district Id. Bessant erred in Gall, 552 U.S. at
court
calculating his criminal history category by including a state conviction that occurred after the conduct, but before
imposition of sentence, in the present case.
Although Bessant's
sentence for the state narcotics conviction was imposed in 2007, after the commencement of the instant offense, it is nonetheless 3
Case: 10-4380
Document: 34
Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Page: 4
a "prior sentence" because it was for conduct unrelated to the instant offense and was imposed prior to the January 7, 2010 sentencing for the instant offense. Manual § 4A1.2, cmt. n.1 (2008). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Bessant's criminal history
category thus was properly calculated. Because Bessant's the record we reveals no procedural the error in is
sentencing,
conclude In
that
sentence
procedurally pursuant to
reasonable. the statutory
addition, mandatory
Bessant's minimum is
sentence per se
substantively reasonable. 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d Accordingly, we affirm Bessant's
sentence as reasonable. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. court. writing, Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court the requires to that counsel the inform Bessant, of in the
This of
right
petition
Supreme
Court
United States for further review.
If Bessant 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 Bessant.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
4
Case: 10-4380
Document: 34
Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Page: 5
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
5
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?