US v. Jeffrey Brady
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00364-JAB-7 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015614].. [16-4370]
Appeal: 16-4370
Doc: 30
Filed: 02/02/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY KALVIN BRADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00364-JAB-7)
Submitted:
January 31, 2017
Decided:
February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4370
Doc: 30
Filed: 02/02/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Kalvin Brady appeals the 98-month sentence imposed
upon
his
guilty
plea
to
conspiracy
to
distribute
cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846
(2012).
On appeal, Brady’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that
there
are
no
meritorious
grounds
for
appeal
but
questioning
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting
Brady’s
reasonable.
despite
guilty
plea
and
whether
the
sentence
is
Brady has not filed a supplemental pro se brief
being
advised
of
his
right
to
do
so.
Finding
no
meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
First, Brady generally questions whether the district court
erred in accepting his guilty plea.
Because Brady did not move
to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise preserve a claim of
Rule 11 error, we review for plain error.
United States v.
Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).
plea
hearing
complied
with
reveals
Rule
11
that
in
the
district
conducting
the
Our review of the
court
plea
substantially
colloquy,
thus
ensuring that Brady’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported
by an independent factual basis.
Brady
next
reasonableness
of
reasonableness
for
questions
his
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b).
the
sentence.
abuse
of
procedural
We
discretion.
2
and
review
substantive
a
United
sentence’s
States
v.
Appeal: 16-4370
Doc: 30
Filed: 02/02/2017
Pg: 3 of 4
Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014).
for
procedural
error,
such
as
improper
We first review
calculation
of
the
Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
(2012)
factors,
selection
of
a
sentence
based
on
clearly erroneous facts, id. at 528, or failure to adequately
explain the sentence, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness
of
circumstances.”
the
Id.
sentence
under
“the
totality
of
the
Sentences within a properly calculated
Guidelines range are presumed reasonable, and this presumption
“can
only
be
unreasonable
factors.”
rebutted
when
by
measured
showing
against
that
the
18
the
sentence
U.S.C.
is
§ 3553(a)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014).
We conclude that Brady’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable and that Brady has not overcome the presumption of
substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines-range
sentence.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Brady, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Brady requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3
Appeal: 16-4370
Doc: 30
counsel
may
Filed: 02/02/2017
move
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brady.
facts
this
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
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?