US v. Jeffrey Brady


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4370 Doc: 30 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4370 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY KALVIN BRADY, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?