US v. Charles Curtin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4071 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES BRIAN CURTIN, a/k/a White Boy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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?