US v. Charles Curtin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00467-TDC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999939804].. [16-4071]

Appeal: 16-4071

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES BRIAN CURTIN, a/k/a White Boy Brian, a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00467-TDC-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Leah Bressack, Arun G. Rao,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4071

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Charles Brian Curtin pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea

agreement,

to

conspiracy

to

possess

with

intent

to

distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and possession of a firearm
by

a

convicted

(2012).

The

felon,

district

in

violation

court

of

18

sentenced

U.S.C.

Curtin

to

§ 922(g)(1)
200

months’

imprisonment, a sentence below his 262- to 327-month advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range.

On appeal, counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal.

Curtin was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but he did not file one.

The Government declined to file

a brief.
Because

Curtin

did

not

move

in

the

district

court

to

withdraw his guilty 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, [Curtin] must show that

an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error
affected his substantial rights.”
478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Muhammad,
Even if Curtin satisfies

these requirements, “correction of the error remains within our
discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error
seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
2

Appeal: 16-4071

of

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

judicial

omitted).

proceedings.”

Pg: 3 of 4

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

the district court fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Curtin’s guilty plea,
which Curtin entered knowingly and voluntarily.
Next,

we

substantive

review

reasonableness

discretion standard.
(2007).

Curtin’s

sentence

under

a

for

procedural

deferential

abuse

and
of

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

We must first ensure that the district court did not

commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to
properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or
failing to adequately explain the sentence.
sentence

procedurally

reasonable,

substantive reasonableness.
that

a

sentence

we

within

Id. at 328.
or

below

Id.
then

If we find the
consider

its

We presume on appeal

the

properly

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

calculated

United States v.
Such a presumption

is rebutted only when the defendant shows “that the sentence is
unreasonable
United

States

when
v.

measured

against

Montes-Pineda,

445

the
F.3d

§

3553(a)
375,

379

factors.”
(4th

Cir.

2006).
We discern no procedural or substantive sentencing error by
the district court.

The district court correctly calculated
3

Appeal: 16-4071

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Curtin’s advisory Guidelines range, heard argument from counsel,
provided Curtin an opportunity to allocute, and considered the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors.
conclude

that

Curtin’s

We have reviewed the record and

below-Guidelines

sentence

is

both

procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this
case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

This

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

If Curtin requests 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 Curtin.
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