US v. Azhaun Jamah Riven

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00113-LCB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999910979].. [15-4735]

Appeal: 15-4735

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AZHAUN JAMAH RIVENS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00113-LCB-1)

Submitted:

August 12, 2016

Decided:

August 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4735

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Azhaun

Jamah

Rivens

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement, to being a felon in possession of firearms, under
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2) (2012), and was sentenced to
37 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel filed a brief,

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the
following

issue:

whether

Rivens’

sentence

was

reasonable.

Rivens was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has failed to do so.

We affirm.

We review any criminal sentence for reasonableness under a
deferential

abuse-of-discretion

standard.

Gall

v.

United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Rivera–Santana,
668

F.3d

properly

95,

100-01

calculated

(4th

Cir.

Rivens’

2012).

advisory

The

district

Sentencing

court

Guidelines

range, discussed some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors,
and adequately explained its within—Guidelines range sentence.
Thus,

we

find

that

Rivens’

substantively reasonable.

sentence

was

procedurally

and

See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328-29 (4th Cir. 2009).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We

note that Rivens knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty in a
hearing that complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
2

See United

Appeal: 15-4735

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).

Because

Rivens did not seek to withdraw his plea, we review the issue
for plain error, see United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 81516 (4th Cir. 2014), and find none.

Thus, we affirm Rivens’

conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Rivens, in writing,
of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for

further

filed,

but

review.
counsel

If

Rivens

believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
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 Rivens.

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

3