US v. Larry King

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00454-JAB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999727254]. [15-4280]

Appeal: 15-4280

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY SHANE KING,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00454-JAB-1)

Submitted:

December 10, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

December 30, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4280

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry

Shane

King

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

sentencing him to 151 months of imprisonment pursuant to his
conviction for conspiring to manufacture quantities of a mixture
and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012).

King’s

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, as well as King’s pro se supplemental brief, and have
found no meritorious issues.

Before accepting King’s guilty

plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy,
satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring
that King’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an
independent factual basis.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).

The district court made no

significant procedural error at sentencing, see Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and
appellate

presumption

that

substantively reasonable.

his

King has not rebutted our

within-Guidelines

sentence

is

See United States v. Louthian, 756

F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Accordingly,
judgment.

This

we
court

affirm

the

requires
2

district

that

counsel

court’s
inform

criminal
King,

in

Appeal: 15-4280

Doc: 24

writing,
United

of

Filed: 12/30/2015

his

States

right

for

to

further

Pg: 3 of 3

petition
review.

the
If

Supreme
King

Court

requests

of

the

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 King.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3