US v. Ron Sowell, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00906-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999244428].. [13-4445]

Appeal: 13-4445

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4445

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RON TYRONE SOWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00906-RBH-1)

Submitted:

November 19, 2013

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided: November 21, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-4445

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ron Tyrone Sowell, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2012), and received a withinGuidelines sentence of 115 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal,

Sowell’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to consider
whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Sowell’s guilty plea and whether the district
court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence.
Sowell has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging various
sentencing

enhancements.

response.

The

Government

declined

to

file

a

We affirm.
Because Sowell did not move to withdraw his guilty

plea in the district court, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing
is reviewed for plain error only.

United States v. Martinez,

277 F.3d 517, 524–26 (4th Cir. 2002).

To demonstrate plain

error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error
was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).

In the guilty plea

context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain
error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable
probability
district

that

court’s

he

would

Rule

11

not

have

pled

omissions.
2

guilty
United

but

for

the

States

v.

Appeal: 13-4445

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
review

of

the

record

reveals

that

the

Our thorough

district

court

fully

complied with Rule 11 in conducting the guilty plea colloquy.
Thus, we

conclude

that

Sowell’s

guilty

plea

was

knowing

and

voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and we
find no error in the district court’s acceptance of his guilty
plea.
Next,

counsel

challenges

court’s explanation of the sentence.

as

inadequate

the

district

We review any sentence for

reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
procedurally

reasonable

sufficiently

explains

if,

its

among

reasons

other
for

A sentence is

things,

imposing

the

it.

court
United

States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
every

sentence

requires

an

adequate

explanation,

While

when

the

district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range,
“the

explanation

need

not

be

elaborate

or

lengthy.”

United

States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010).

Our

review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court provided an adequate explanation of Sowell’s sentence and
therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing its chosen
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined Sowell’s
pro se claims and the entire record for potentially meritorious
3

Appeal: 13-4445

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/21/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

issues and have found none.
district court.

We affirm the judgment of the

This court requires that counsel inform Sowell,

in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would

be

frivolous,

then

counsel

may

move

to

withdraw.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Sowell.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4