US v. Lateef Akande

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999601332-2] Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00288-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999697544].. [14-4579]

Appeal: 14-4579

Doc: 64

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LATEEF AKANDE, a/k/a Vincent Tyrone Jackson, a/k/a Tyrone
Jackson, a/k/a Alexander Lamar Norris, a/k/a Samuel Dejuan
Jackson, a/k/a Brian Tafft, a/k/a Brian Tefft, a/k/a Jon
Agne, a/k/a Antwan Morgan, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00288-RWT-1)

Submitted:

October 30, 2015

Decided:

November 12, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth E. McPherson, KENNETH E. MCPHERSON, CHTD, Riverdale,
Maryland, Gregory W. Gardner, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. GARDNER,
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, David Ira Salem,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Patrick Windom, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Appeal: 14-4579

Doc: 64

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-4579

Doc: 64

Filed: 11/12/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Lateef Akande appeals his conviction and 175-month sentence
after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012); bank fraud, in violation
of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1344

(2012);

aggravated

identity

theft,

in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2012); and money laundering, in
violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 1957

(2012).

Akande’s

counsel

has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the indictment was sufficient, whether
Akande’s guilty plea was valid, whether a proper factual basis
existed

for

reasonable. *

the

plea,

and

whether

sentence

was

Akande has been notified of his right to file a pro

se brief, but he has not filed one.
We

Akande’s

detect

no

flaws

in

We affirm.

Akande’s

indictment.

We

also

conclude that no reversible error occurred during Akande’s Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, and that the district court had an ample
factual basis from which to accept Akande’s guilty plea.
Turning to Akande’s sentence, we review for both procedural
and

substantive

reasonableness

“under

*

a

deferential

abuse-of-

Although Akande waived his right to appeal in his plea
agreement, the Government has not moved to enforce that waiver.
See United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000)
(this court will not enforce waiver provision in plea agreement
sua sponte)

3

Appeal: 14-4579

Doc: 64

Filed: 11/12/2015

discretion standard.”
(2007).

Pg: 4 of 5

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41

We must ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines

range.

Id.

at

51.

If

there

is

no

significant

procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness

under

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances,

including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id.

We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated

Guidelines range is reasonable.

United States v. Louthian, 756

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.”
After
transcript,

Id.

reviewing
we

the

conclude

presentence
that

report

Akande’s

and

sentencing

sentence

procedurally and substantively reasonable.

is

both

The district court

properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
applicable

§ 3553(a)

factors,

and

thoroughly

explained

reasons for imposing the sentence Akande received.
Akande

has

presumption

not
of

made

the

showing

reasonableness

necessary

accorded

his

to

its

In addition,
rebut

the

within-Guidelines

sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
4

Appeal: 14-4579

appeal.

Doc: 64

We

Filed: 11/12/2015

therefore

affirm

Pg: 5 of 5

the

district

court’s

judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw at this juncture is denied.

This

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

If Akande requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Akande.
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

5