US v. Catrina Everhart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00004-GMG-RWT-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538712].. [14-4673]

Appeal: 14-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATRINA COLLEEN EVERHART,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00004-GMG-RWT-2)

Submitted:

February 20, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Rice, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Jarod
James
Douglas,
Assistant
United
States
Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Appellant.
Attorney,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Catrina

Colleen
sentence

sixty-month
conspiracy

Everhart
imposed

to

possess

with

appeals

her

following
intent

conviction

her

to

guilty

distribute

and

the

plea

to

and

to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
On appeal, Everhart’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
district

grounds

court

for

fully

appeal

complied

but
with

questioning
Federal

whether

Rule

of

the

Criminal

Procedure 11 in accepting Everhart’s guilty plea and whether the
sentence is reasonable.

Everhart was advised of her right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one.

Finding

no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
Everhart first questions whether the district court erred
in accepting her guilty plea.
reveals

that

the

district

Our review of the plea hearing

court

substantially

complied

with

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in conducting the plea
colloquy and committed no error warranting correction on plain
error review.

See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532

(4th Cir. 2002).

Thus, the court did not err in accepting

Everhart’s knowing and voluntary guilty plea.

2

Appeal: 14-4673

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Everhart next questions the reasonableness of the sentence. *
In reviewing a sentence, we must first ensure that the district
court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as
failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or
failing

to

adequately

explain

the

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

sentence.

Gall

v.

United

Once we have determined that

there is no procedural error, we must consider the substantive
reasonableness

of

the

sentence,

totality of the circumstances.”
within

the

appropriate

“tak[ing]

Id.

into

account

the

If the sentence imposed is

Guidelines

range,

we

consider

it

presumptively reasonable.

United States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d

583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013).

The presumption may be rebutted by a

showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the § 3553(a) factors.”
F.3d

375,

omitted).

379

(4th

Upon

review,

United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445

Cir.
we

2006)

(internal

conclude

that

the

quotation
district

marks
court

committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing the
sixty-month sentence.

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577

(4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review); United States v.

*

We decline to sua sponte enforce Everhart’s waiver of
appellate rights in the plea agreement.
See United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).

3

Appeal: 14-4673

Doc: 23

Farrior,

Filed: 03/03/2015

535

F.3d

210,

224

Pg: 4 of 4

(4th

Cir.

2008)

(a

statutory

mandatory minimum sentence is “per se reasonable”).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

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

If Everhart requests that a petition be filed,

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Everhart.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4