US v. Kentwan Russell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00679-CCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999360890]. [13-4905]

Appeal: 13-4905

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4905

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENTWAN RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00679-CCB-1)

Submitted:

May 8, 2014

Decided:

May 22, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4905

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kentwan Russell appeals his conviction and 180-month
armed career criminal sentence imposed by the district court
after

he

firearm,

pled
in

guilty

to

being

violation

of

18

a

felon

U.S.C.

in

possession

§ 922(g)(1)

(2012).

of

a
On

appeal, Russell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious

grounds

for

appeal

but

questioning

whether

the

district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether
Russell’s sentence is reasonable.

Although advised of his right

to do so, Russell has not filed a pro se brief.

We affirm.

Because Russell did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for
plain error.

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th

Cir. 2002); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,
1126-27 (2013) (discussing standard of review).
district

court

neglected

to

inform

Russell

of

Although the
certain

trial

rights, we conclude that the court’s minor omissions did not
affect his substantial rights.

See United States v. Massenburg,

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

Moreover, the district court

ensured that Russell’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that a
factual basis supported the plea.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “an
abuse-of-discretion standard.”

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
2

Appeal: 13-4905

38,

Doc: 21

51

Filed: 05/22/2014

In

(2007).

Pg: 3 of 3

we

so

doing,

significant procedural error.”

examine

See id.

the

sentence

for

If there is none, we

“consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence . . .,
tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Upon

a

thorough

review

of

the

sentencing

proceedings,

Id.
we

conclude that Russell’s sentence is procedurally reasonable and
that

Russell

failed

to

reasonableness

afforded

United

v.

States

rebut
his

the

presumption

within-Guidelines

Montes-Peneda,

445

F.3d

of

substantive

sentence.

375,

379

(4th

See
Cir.

2006) (explaining presumption of reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

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

If

Russell

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Russell.

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