US v. Markeith Loyd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00119-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998661452].. [11-4314]

Appeal: 11-4314

Document: 24

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARKEITH LOYD,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00119-1)

Submitted:

August 18, 2011

Decided:

August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Debbie H.
Stevens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4314

Document: 24

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Markeith

Loyd

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), to one count of
possession
violation
district

of

items

of

18

court

appeal, Loyd’s

designed

U.S.C.

and

intended

§ 1791(a)(2),

imposed

a

to

be

(d)(1)(B)

twenty-seven–month

weapons,

in

(2006).

The

sentence.

On

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that he
finds no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether
Loyd’s

sentence

is

unreasonable

because

it

is

greater

than

necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006).
Although informed of his right to do so, Loyd has not filed a
supplemental
response.

brief.

The

Government

has

declined

to

file

a

We affirm.
We review a district court’s imposition of a sentence

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. *
United

States,

sentence

within

reasonable.

552
a

U.S.

38,

51

(2007).

properly-calculated

We

See Gall v.

presume

Guidelines

that

range

a
is

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.

*

Loyd’s plea agreement included a waiver barring an appeal
from a sentence within the range of twenty-four to thirty months
imprisonment. However, the Government has not filed a motion to
dismiss asserting the waiver, and we do not sua sponte enforce
appellate waivers.
See generally United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Brock,
211 F.3d 88, 90 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2000)).

2

Appeal: 11-4314

Document: 24

2007).

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 3 of 3

Loyd’s counsel points to several factors that may have

lent support to a lower sentence in Loyd’s case, but none of
these considerations demonstrate that Loyd’s within-Guidelines
sentence is unreasonable.

United States v. Montes–Pineda, 445

F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).

The district court provided a

sound explanation for rejecting Loyd’s request for a lesser term
of imprisonment at sentencing.

The record does not support a

finding that the district court’s sentence is unreasonable in
this regard.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Loyd’s conviction and sentence.

This court

requires that counsel inform Loyd, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Loyd 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 Loyd.
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

3