US v. Thomas Wilson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-02340-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999041937].. [12-4608]
Appeal: 12-4608
Doc: 24
Filed: 02/12/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4608
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS LEROY WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02340-TLW-1)
Submitted:
January 24, 2013
Decided:
February 12, 2013
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-4608
Doc: 24
Filed: 02/12/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Leroy Wilson appeals his judgment and sentence
after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine
hydrochloride
(b)(1)(C)
(2006),
in
and
violation
possession
of
of
21
a
U.S.C.
firearm
§ 841(a)(1),
during
and
in
relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)
pursuant
(2006).
to
Anders
Wilson’s
v.
attorney
California,
386
has
filed
U.S.
738
a
brief
(1967),
asserting, in his opinion, that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising the issues of whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Wilson’s guilty
plea and whether the court committed procedural or substantive
error in sentencing him within his Guidelines range on count
one.
Wilson has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the
issue of whether police had “a right by law to search the car
that they found the gun and drugs in.”
We affirm.
Wilson first raises the issue of whether the district
court
complied
guilty
plea.
proceedings
plain error.
with
Fed.
Because
in
the
R.
Crim.
Wilson
district
P.
did
not
court,
we
11
when
accepting
challenge
review
the
this
Rule
issue
his
11
for
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Vonn,
535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652,
657 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude
that Wilson has not shown any plain error by the district court.
2
Appeal: 12-4608
Doc: 24
Filed: 02/12/2013
Pg: 3 of 5
Wilson also raises the issue of whether police had “a
right by law to search the car that they found the gun and drugs
in.”
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has
waived the right to raise this issue.
See United States v.
Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 (4th Cir. 2004) (“When a defendant
pleads guilty, he waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the
proceedings conducted prior to entry of the plea”); see also
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (“When a criminal
defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact
guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not
thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation
of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the
guilty plea,” as “a guilty plea represents a break in the chain
of events which has preceded it in the criminal process”).
Finally,
district
court
Wilson
committed
raises
the
procedural
issue
or
of
whether
substantive
error
sentencing him within his Guidelines range on count one.
review
a
standard.
first
step
sentence
under
a
deferential
this
review
requires
us
in
We
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
in
the
to
ensure
that
The
the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as
improperly
calculating
the
Guidelines
range,
failing
to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to
adequately explain the sentence.
3
United States v. Carter, 564
Appeal: 12-4608
Doc: 24
Filed: 02/12/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
If the sentence is procedurally
reasonable, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We presume that a
sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
In
calculate
sentencing,
the
opportunity
Guidelines
to
appropriate.
argue
§
3553(a)
sentence
district
range
for
and
whatever
court
give
should
the
first
parties
sentence
they
an
deem
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216 (4th Cir. 2010).
the
the
The district court should then consider
factors
requested
by
to
determine
either
whether
they
support
Id.
When
rendering
party.
the
a
sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case.
Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330.
In
explaining
the
chosen
sentence,
the
“sentencing
judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
Rita
v.
United
States,
551
U.S.
338,
356
(2007).
While
a
district court must consider the statutory factors and explain
its sentence, it need not discuss every factor on the record.
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
4
Appeal: 12-4608
Doc: 24
Filed: 02/12/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson’s
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, and the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 his or her client, in
writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review.
that
a
petition
be
filed,
but
If the client requests
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 the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
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?