US v. Shamika Clinkscale
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00373-WO-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999483091].. [14-4328]
Appeal: 14-4328
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/26/2014
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAMIKA CHANTAY CLINKSCALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-WO-3)
Submitted:
November 20, 2014
Decided:
November 26, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4328
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/26/2014
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Shamika Chantay Clinkscale appeals her conviction and
thirty-month
possession
sentence
of
stolen
imposed
following
firearms,
§§ 922(j) and 2 (2012).
in
her
guilty
violation
of
plea
18
to
U.S.C.
On appeal, Clinkscale’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),
appeal
asserting
but
that
there
questioning
are
whether
no
meritorious
Clinkscale’s
issues
guilty
plea
for
was
knowing and voluntary and whether her sentence is reasonable.
Clinkscale
was
notified
of
her
right
supplemental brief but has not done so.
declined to file a response brief.
to
file
a
pro
se
The Government has
Finding no error, we affirm.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must
conduct a colloquy with the defendant in which it informs the
defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the
nature
of
the
charges
to
which
she
is
pleading
guilty,
any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalties she faces, and
the rights she is relinquishing by pleading guilty.
Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116
(4th Cir. 1991).
The court must ensure that the defendant’s
plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent
factual basis.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3).
Because Clinkscale did not move to withdraw her guilty
plea or otherwise identify in the district court any error in
2
Appeal: 14-4328
the
Doc: 41
plea
Filed: 11/26/2014
proceedings,
we
colloquy for plain error.
337,
342
(4th
otherwise,
complied
Cir.
in
the
with
the
Pg: 3 of 5
review
the
adequacy
of
the
plea
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
2009).
plea
We
discern
colloquy.
requirements
no
Rather,
of
Rule
error,
the
11,
plain
court
or
fully
ensuring
that
Clinkscale’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an
independent factual basis.
We therefore conclude her guilty
plea is valid and enforceable.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.”
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
district
including
court
committed
improper
no
Gall
v.
United
We “must first ensure that the
significant
calculation
of
the
procedural
error,”
Guidelines
range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors,
and
inadequate
explanation
of
the
sentence
imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
575 (4th Cir. 2010).
If we find no procedural error, we examine
the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “the totality
of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The sentence
imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to
satisfy the goals of sentencing.
presume
that
Clinkscale’s
substantively reasonable.
289 (4th Cir. 2012).
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
within-Guidelines
sentence
We
is
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
Clinkscale bears the burden to “rebut the
3
Appeal: 14-4328
Doc: 41
Filed: 11/26/2014
Pg: 4 of 5
presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.”
Montes-Pineda,
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
United States v.
Cir.
2006)
(internal
quotation marks omitted).
We conclude Clinkscale’s sentence is reasonable.
district
court
correctly
calculated
Clinkscale’s
The
Guidelines
range and considered that range and the parties’ arguments in
determining
the
explanation
of
sentence.
the
§ 3553(a) factors.
presumption
of
The
sentence
court
it
provided
imposed,
a
grounded
detailed
in
the
Moreover, Clinkscale has not rebutted the
reasonableness
accorded
her
within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Clinkscale’s conviction and sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Clinkscale, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,
review.
but
If
counsel
Clinkscale
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 Clinkscale.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
4
presented
in
the
materials
Appeal: 14-4328
before
Doc: 41
this
court
Filed: 11/26/2014
and
Pg: 5 of 5
argument
would
not
aid
the
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?