US v. Kirk Chandler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00106-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999610790].. [14-4816]

Appeal: 14-4816

Doc: 32

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4816

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KIRK ANTONY CHANDLER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00106-CCE-1)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

June 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4816

Doc: 32

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Kirk Antony Chandler pled guilty without a plea agreement to
one count of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1) (West Supp. 2014), and was sentenced
to 90 months in prison.

Chandler’s attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when
it accepted Chandler’s guilty plea and whether Chandler’s sentence
is reasonable.

Chandler has not filed a pro se supplemental brief

despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and the Government
has declined to file a responsive brief.

Finding no error, we

affirm.
Because

Chandler

did

not

move

in

the

district

court

to

withdraw his plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain
error.

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

2002).

To establish plain error, Chandler must show:

(1) there

was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
substantial rights.

Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,

1126-27 (2013); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden of
demonstrating that an error affected his substantial rights by
“show[ing] a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he

2

Appeal: 14-4816

Doc: 32

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

would not have entered the plea.”
564

F.3d

337,

omitted).

343

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Massenburg,

2009)

(internal

quotation

marks

We have reviewed the transcript of Chandler’s Rule 11

hearing and conclude that the district court complied with Rule
11, that Chandler’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and
that there was a factual basis for the plea.

Accordingly, we

affirm Chandler’s conviction.
We review Chandler’s sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard.
46, 51 (2007).

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

This review requires consideration of both the

procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Id. at

51. We first assess whether the district court properly calculated
the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012), analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id. at 49–51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th
Cir. 2010).

If we find no procedural error, we review the sentence

for substantive reasonableness, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances[.]”

United States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,

216 (4th Cir. 2010).
properly

calculated

“Any sentence that is within or below a
Guidelines

range

is

presumptively

[substantively] reasonable” and “[s]uch a presumption can only be
rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured

3

Appeal: 14-4816

Doc: 32

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 4 of 5

against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014).
We conclude that Chandler’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable.

The district court correctly calculated

Chandler’s Guidelines range; granted, in part, Chandler’s motion
for a downward variance; and adequately explained its reasons for
imposing the 90-month variant sentence.

Moreover, Chandler offers

nothing to rebut the presumption of reasonableness this court
affords his below-Guidelines sentence.

See United States v. Yooho

Weon,

2013).

722

F.3d

583,

590

(4th

Cir.

Thus,

we

affirm

Chandler’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This

We

court

requires counsel to inform Chandler, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Chandler requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy of the motion was served on Chandler. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are

4

Appeal: 14-4816

Doc: 32

adequately

Filed: 06/29/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 5 of 5

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5