US v. Alton Tribble

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00062-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538715].. [14-4674]

Appeal: 14-4674

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4674

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALTON TRIBBLE, a/k/a Rizz, a/k/a Hot Rod,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00062-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Michael Frazier, FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C., Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4674

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alton Tribble appeals his conviction and sixty-threemonth sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession
with

intent

to

distribute

§ 841(a)(1) (2012).

heroin,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

On appeal, Tribble’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: (1) fully complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Tribble’s
guilty

plea;

(2)

misapplied

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

to

Tribble’s sentence; and (3) erred in denying Tribble’s pro se
motion to disallow the use of relevant conduct at sentencing.
Tribble was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file one.

Finding no meritorious grounds for

appeal, we affirm.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Tribble agreed to waive
indictment

and

pled

guilty

to

a

single-count

information,

charging him with possession with intent to distribute heroin,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012).

Tribble first

questions

accepting

whether

guilty plea.

the

district

court

erred

in

his

Our review of the plea hearing reveals that the

district

court

substantially

Criminal

Procedure

11

in

complied

conducting

with
the

Federal
plea

Rule

colloquy

of
and

committed no error warranting correction on plain error review.
2

Appeal: 14-4674

See

Doc: 21

United

2002).

Filed: 03/03/2015

States

Thus,

v.

the

Pg: 3 of 4

Martinez,

court

did

277

not

F.3d

err

517,

in

532

(4th

accepting

Cir.

Tribble’s

knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
Tribble next challenges the court’s application of the
Sentencing

Guidelines

sentence.

in

fashioning

his

sixty-three-month

Our review of the record reveals that the court’s

factual findings were supported by the presentence report.
court

also

correctly

calculated

Tribble’s

criminal

The

history

category and total offense level in determining the Guidelines
range.

Moreover, the court heard arguments from counsel on the

§ 3553(a)
provided

factors,
the

adequately

individualized

explained

assessment

its

reasoning,

required

by

and

Gall

v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007), in sentencing Tribble to
the

low-end

of

the

range.

Thus,

the

court

did

not

commit

reversible error in applying the Guidelines.
We next turn to Tribble’s challenge to the district
court’s denial of his pro se motion to disallow the use of
relevant conduct at sentencing.
type

of

information

to

be

We have long held that “[t]he

considered

by

a

sentencing

judge

is . . . unlimited,” provided that such information is reliable.
United States v. Bowman, 926 F.2d 380, 381 (4th Cir. 1991); see
United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“[A]

sentencing

court

may

give

weight

to

any

relevant

information before it, . . . provided that the information has
3

Appeal: 14-4674

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.”).
The information that the court relied upon in determining the
drug quantity attributable to Tribble was sufficiently reliable
and accurate.

Thus, the court properly denied Tribble’s motion.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

If Tribble requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would 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 Tribble.

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

4