US v. Justin Gamble
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:08-cr-00928-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998580115].. [10-5047]
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
Page: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5047
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN CLIFFORD GAMBLE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:08-cr-00928-HMH-1)
Submitted:
April 22, 2011
Decided:
May 2, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Fredric Marcinak, III, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
Page: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Justin
Clifford
Gamble
pleaded
guilty
to
possession
with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999
& Supp.
2010)
furtherance
U.S.C.
(Count
of
Three),
a
trafficking
§ 924(c)(1)
drug
(Count
and
possessing
crime,
Four).
The
in
Counts One and Two of the indictment.
a
firearm
violation
Government
of
in
18
dismissed
Gamble was sentenced to
forty-six months’ imprisonment for Count Three, the bottom of
the Guidelines range, and a consecutive sixty-month sentence for
Count Four, the mandatory statutory minimum.
In this appeal, Gamble first argues that his guilty
plea was not knowing and voluntary.
He asserts that he was
instructed to plead guilty by his defense counsel and that his
plea was entered under duress.
Gamble did not move to withdraw his guilty plea and we
therefore review the adequacy of the plea pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim.
P.
11
for
plain
error.
See
United
States
v.
Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002) (holding defendant who lets Rule 11
error pass without objection in the district court must satisfy
the plain-error test); United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
337,
342
(4th Cir. 2009).
To
establish
plain
error,
Gamble
“must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and
(3) the error affects substantial rights.”
2
Massenburg, 564 F.3d
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
at 342-43.
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
Page: 3 of 6
Even if such error is found, it is within this
court’s discretion to notice the error, and we do so “only if
the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Massenburg, 564 F.3d at
343 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We evaluate a guilty plea based on “the totality of
the
circumstances”
surrounding
States v.
Moussaoui,
591
F.3d
properly
conducted
Rule
11
the
263,
guilty
278
colloquy
plea.
United
(4th Cir. 2010).
creates
a
A
“strong
presumption” that a plea of guilty was taken appropriately and
is “final and binding.”
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389,
1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
court
carry
a
strong
“Solemn declarations in open
presumption
of
verity.
The
subsequent
presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics
is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that in the
face
of
the
record
are
wholly
incredible.”
Blackledge
v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).
Here, Gamble has not identified any defect in the Rule
11 hearing.
plea
was
not
While under oath, Gamble stated that his guilty
the
product
of
threats,
force,
or
coercion.
Although Gamble asserts that he did not understand his guilty
plea would result in a five-year consecutive sentence for Count
Four, the district specifically advised him of this fact.
We
therefore conclude that Gamble’s allegation that his attorney
3
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
Page: 4 of 6
coerced him into pleading guilty is incredible in the face of
the record.
The totality of the circumstances establishes that
his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Next, Gamble argues that the district court committed
procedural error in sentencing him because it failed to consider
its authority to impose a variance sentence and failed to make
an individualized assessment.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
States,
U.S.
552
38,
51
standard.
(2007).
A
Gall
United
court
district
v.
commits
procedural error when it “treat[s] the guidelines as mandatory,”
id., or “‘fail[s] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’”
United
States
v.
Lynn,
592
F.3d
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
572,
575
(4th Cir. 2010)
While district judges must
provide in each case a particularized assessment explaining why
the sentence imposed is proper, they need not “robotically tick
through
[18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a)’s
[(2006)]
every
subsection.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, “when a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines
to
a
particular
case,
lengthy explanation.”
doing
so
will
not
necessarily
require
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007).
Here,
Gamble
asked
the
district
court
to
take
his
efforts to turn his life around into account, but he did not
4
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
request any particular sentence.
Page: 5 of 6
Consequently, we review for
plain error Gamble’s claim that the district court committed
procedural error in failing to recognize its authority to impose
a variance sentence.
Lynn, 592 F.3d at 577.
Gamble argues the
district court misunderstood its authority to impose a variance
statement based on the court’s statement: “I’m going to give you
under
the
guidelines
the
lowest
sentence
I
can
give
you.”
Because there were no objections to the presentence report and
no
request
for
a
sentence
outside
the
Guidelines
range,
we
conclude that the court’s statement reflects its assessment of
an appropriate sentence in light of an apparent agreement that
Gamble’s sentence should be within the Guidelines range.
We
conclude
that
the
district
court
adequately
discharged its responsibility to explain the sentence imposed
with sufficient detail to allow for meaningful appellate review.
See Rita, 551 U.S. at 359.
Gamble never requested a sentence
outside his Guidelines range and the only argument he presented
to the court at sentencing concerned his family life, his lack
of criminal history, and his efforts to turn his life around.
The district court credited Gamble’s efforts, stating, “I am
impressed that you are doing everything you can now to turn your
life around.”
Accordingly, “the record makes clear that the
sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments,” id.,
and concluded a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range
5
Appeal: 10-5047
Document: 33
was proper.
Date Filed: 05/02/2011
Page: 6 of 6
Id. at 357 (“Circumstances may well make clear that
the judge rests his decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning
that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence.”);
United
States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010).
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense
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
6
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?