US v. Ryshon Grate

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00369-RBH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998653543].. [10-5056]

Appeal: 10-5056

Document: 50

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYSHON PETOEZ GRATE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00369-RBH-2)

Submitted:

July 28, 2011

Decided:

August 12, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-5056

Document: 50

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ryshon Petoez Grate pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to bank robbery and use of a firearm during a
crime

of

violence,

18

U.S.C.

§§

924(c)(1)(A),

2113(a),

(d)

(2006), and was sentenced to a total term of eighty-four months
of imprisonment.

On appeal, Grate’s attorney has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Grate’s guilty plea and whether the
court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence.
Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief, Grate has not done so.

For the reasons that follow, we

affirm.
We conclude, based on our review of the transcript of
Grate’s

guilty

complied

with

plea
Rule

hearing,
11

in

that

accepting

the

district

Grate’s

court

guilty

fully

plea.

The

court ensured that Grate understood the charges 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. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119–20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Grate’s conviction.

2

Accordingly, we affirm

Appeal: 10-5056

Document: 50

We

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

review

a

sentence

abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
procedural
First,

this

properly
U.S.C.

and

substantive

court

3553(a)

presented

by

the

selected sentence.
F.3d

572,

576

substantive
totality

of

for

reasonableness

under

an

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

This review requires consideration of both the

calculated
§

Page: 3 of 4

must
the

assess

whether

Guidelines

(2006)

and

a

the

range,

factors,

parties,

of

sentence.
district

considered

analyzed

any

sufficiently

Id.

court
the

18

arguments

explained

the

Id. at 49–50; see United States v. Lynn, 592

(4th

Cir.

2010).

reasonableness
the

reasonableness

of

We

the

circumstances

to

also

must

see

the

“examin[ing]

sentence,

consider

the

whether

the

sentencing

court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”

United

States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
In

this

case,

the

district

court

correctly

calculated

and

considered the advisory Guidelines range and heard argument from
counsel

and

relevant

§

allocution
3553(a)

from

factors

Grate.
and

The

explained

court
that

considered
the

within-

Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of the nature and
circumstances of the offense.

Further, Grate offers no grounds

to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within-Guidelines
sentence

of

eighty-four

months

3

imprisonment

is

substantively

Appeal: 10-5056

Document: 50

reasonable.

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Grate.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Grate, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Grate requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Grate.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4