US v. John Kearney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00139-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999153258]. [12-5048]

Appeal: 12-5048

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-5048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN JUNIOR KEARNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00139-CCE-1)

Submitted:

July 9, 2013

Decided:

July 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Andrew Charles Cochran,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-5048

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
John Junior Kearney appeals his conviction and 100month sentence following his guilty plea to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006).
(1967),
there

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
Kearney’s

are

whether

no

the

counsel

has

meritorious

district

court

filed

issues

a

for

adequately

brief
appeal

certifying
but

complied

that

questioning

with

Fed.

R.

Crim. P. 11 when accepting Kearney’s plea and whether Kearney’s
sentence is reasonable.

Although notified of his right to do

so, Kearney has not filed a supplemental brief.

We affirm.

Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw
his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error.
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
the

district

court

substantially

complied

with

Rule

United
Because
11

when

accepting Kearney’s plea, we conclude that the plea was knowing
and voluntary and, therefore, final and binding.
We review Kearney’s sentence for reasonableness, using
an abuse of discretion standard.
U.S.

38,

procedural

51

(2007).
errors,

We

must

including

Gall v. United States, 552
first

review

improperly

for

significant

calculating

the

Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006)

factors,

sentencing

under

2

clearly

erroneous

facts,

or

Appeal: 12-5048

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

failing to adequately explain the sentence.

Id. at 51; United

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).
find

a

sentence

procedurally

substantive reasonableness.

reasonable

may

we

Only if we

consider

its

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Here,

we

conclude

that

Kearney’s

sentence

is

both

procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The district court

correctly

range

calculated

Kearney’s

Guidelines

and

clearly

explained the basis for imposing a sentence within that range
based

on

the

18

U.S.C.

individual circumstances.
445

F.3d

375,

379

§ 3553(a)

factors

and

Kearney’s

See United States v. Montes-Pineda,

(4th

Cir.

2006)

(within-Guidelines

range

sentence is presumed reasonable).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Kearney’s conviction and sentence.

We

This court

requires that counsel inform Kearney, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Kearney

counsel

believes

that

counsel

may

in

move

representation.

requests
such
this

that
a

a

petition

petition

court

for

would

leave

to

be
be

filed,

but

frivolous,

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Kearney.

We dispense with oral argument because

3

Appeal: 12-5048

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4