US v. Alex Odom, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00053-CCE-11. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999963373]. [15-4762]

Appeal: 15-4762

Doc: 54

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEX BAXTER ODOM, JR., a/k/a Turbo,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00053-CCE-11)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

November 7, 2016

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4762

Doc: 54

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alex Baxter Odom, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with
intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2012).

The district court sentenced Odom to 41 months’

imprisonment.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Odom’s counsel has filed a brief certifying there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but generally questioning
the adequacy of the plea hearing and the reasonableness of the
sentence.

Although notified of his right to do so, Odom has

failed to file a pro se brief.

We affirm the district court’s

judgment.
Because Odom did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we
review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain
error.

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir.

2014).

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must

conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of,
and determines he understands, the rights he is relinquishing by
pleading guilty, the charge to which he is pleading, and the
maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces.

Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir.

1991).

The

court

also

must

ensure

that

the

plea

was

voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not
contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and
2

Appeal: 15-4762

Doc: 54

Filed: 11/07/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

“that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(3).

Our review of the record confirms that the district

court fully complied with Rule 11.
We

review

a

defendant’s

abuse-of-discretion standard.”
38, 41 (2007).

sentence

“under

a

deferential

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for

both procedural and substantive reasonableness.

Id. at 51.

In

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue

for

§ 3553(a)

an

appropriate

(2012)

selected sentence.
“significant

sentence,

factors,

and

sufficiently

Id. at 49-51.

procedural

considered

error,”

the

18

U.S.C.

explained

the

If a sentence is free of
then

we

review

it

for

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.”

Id. at 51.

“Any sentence that is within

or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir. 2014).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Odom’s
sentence is procedurally sound.

While Odom argued for a below-

Guidelines sentence and suggested a probationary sentence might
be appropriate, we conclude that his arguments in support fail

3

Appeal: 15-4762

to

Doc: 54

overcome

Filed: 11/07/2016

the

presumption

Pg: 4 of 4

of

reasonableness

accorded

his

below-Guidelines sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

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

If Odom requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Odom.
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