Unpublished
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnpublished
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
OMAR HAKEEN GRANT, a/k/a Omar Hakeem Grant, a/k/a Omar Hakim
Grant,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00829-PMD-1)
Submitted:
April 28, 2011
Decided:
May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary
Gordon
Baker,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Sean Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Omar
firearm
by
Hakeen
Grant
convicted
pled
felon,
922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006).
months
imprisonment.
guilty
in
to
possession
violation
of
18
of
U.S.C.
He was sentenced to eighty-four
Grants
counsel
has
filed
brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that,
in
her
opinion,
there
are
no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal, but questioning whether the district court adequately
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Grants guilty
plea and whether the sentence imposed is reasonable.
Although
advised of his right to do so, Grant has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief.
The Government declined to file a response.
We affirm.
Because Grant did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for
plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Grant] 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,
Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with
Rule 11 and that Grants guilty plea was knowing and voluntary,
and supported by an independent factual basis.
We
also
conclude
that
Grants
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
for abuse of discretion.
(2007).
that
the
error.
2008).
sentence,
sentence
is
both
We review a sentence
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
The first step in this review requires us to ensure
district
court
committed
no
significant
procedural
United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.
In
determining
this
court
the
procedural
considers
reasonableness
whether
the
district
of
court
properly calculated the defendants advisory Guidelines range,
considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any
arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained
the selected sentence.
the
substantive
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
reasonableness
of
the
We then consider
sentence,
account the totality of the circumstances.
taking
into
United States v.
Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
A sentence
within the Guidelines range is accorded an appellate presumption
of reasonableness.
(2007).
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Grants
within-Guidelines
sentence
is
both
procedurally
and
substantively reasonable.
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
courts
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Grant in writing of his
3
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Grant requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Grant.
facts
this
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
