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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-4608 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/12/2013 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4608 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS LEROY WILSON, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?