US v. Mark Scarborough

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00043-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999080814].. [12-4650]

Appeal: 12-4650

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00043-JAB-1)

Submitted:

March 7, 2013

Decided:

April 5, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce A. Lee, BRUCE A. LEE, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4650

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Alan Scarborough pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possession of firearms by a felon, in
violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1),

924(e)

(2006).

sentenced to a 180-month term of imprisonment.

He

was

Scarborough’s

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386

U.S.

738

(1967),

issues for appeal.

stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious

Scarborough was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

Finding

no error, we affirm.
Because Scarborough did not move the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26

(4th Cir. 2002).

“To establish plain error, [a litigant] must

show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that
the error affected his substantial rights.”
Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
record

reveals

no

error,

plain

or

United States v.
A review of the

otherwise.

Rather,

the

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11’s requirements,
ensuring that Scarborough’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that
he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and
the sentence he faced, and that he committed the offense to
which

he

was

pleading

guilty.

Scarborough’s conviction.
2

Accordingly,

we

affirm

Appeal: 12-4650

Doc: 31

We

Filed: 04/05/2013

review

Pg: 3 of 3

Scarborough’s

sentence

under

an

abuse

of

discretion standard, assessing it for procedural and substantive
reasonableness.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2008).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court

properly

offered

a

calculated

sufficiently

imposed.

Scarborough’s

Scarborough’s

reasoned

Guidelines

explanation

sentence

to

the

for

range

and

the

sentence

statutory

mandated

minimum term of imprisonment is procedurally and substantively
reasonable.
Cir. 2008).

United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Accordingly, we affirm Scarborough’s sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We
court

requires that counsel inform Scarborough, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

Scarborough
believes

requests

that

such

that

a

a

petition

petition

would

be
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 his client.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3