US v. James Dean


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cr-00893-HFF-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478680] [10-4535]

Download PDF
US v. James Dean Doc. 0 Case: 10-4535 Document: 26 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4535 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES L. DEAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00893-HFF-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-4535 Document: 26 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: James L. Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. sentenced him to eighty-seven months The district court Dean's imprisonment. counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel's view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Dean's sentence was reasonable. Dean was advised of his right to file Finding no a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. reversible 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 Dean's guilty plea. The court ensured that Dean understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 See United States v. (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Dean's conviction. We have also reviewed Dean's sentence and determined that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed 2 Case: 10-4535 Document: 26 Date Filed: 12/06/2010 Page: 3 was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Dean, appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. writing, United This of the court right requires to that counsel the If inform Dean, of in the a petition review. Supreme Dean Court States for further requests that 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 with contentions the court are and state that a copy thereof was served on Dean. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before adequately presented materials argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?