US v. Nanci Byrd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00053-CCE-13 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999957110].. [15-4777]

Appeal: 15-4777

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NANCI BROOK BYRD,
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-13)

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 28, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4777

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Nanci Brook Byrd 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

imprisonment.

district

court

sentenced

Byrd

to

40

months’

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

738 (1967), Byrd’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there

are

questioning

no

meritorious

the

adequacy

grounds
of

the

reasonableness of the sentence.

for

appeal

plea

but

hearing

generally
and

the

Although notified of her right

to do so, Byrd has failed to file a pro se brief.

We affirm the

district court’s judgment.
Because Byrd did not move to withdraw her 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 she understands, the rights she is relinquishing
by pleading guilty, the charge to which she is pleading, and the
maximum

and

mandatory

minimum

penalties

she

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: 15-4777

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/28/2016

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

an

§ 3553(a)

appropriate

(2012)

selected sentence.
“significant

sentence,

factors,

and

Id. at 49-51.

procedural

error,”

considered

sufficiently

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 Byrd’s
sentence

is

procedurally

sound.

While

Byrd

requested

a

probationary sentence, her arguments in support of that request
fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded her

3

Appeal: 15-4777

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/28/2016

40-month sentence.

Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore conclude that her sentence is

substantively reasonable.
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 Byrd, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Byrd 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 Byrd.
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