United States v. Cannady , 384 F. App'x 253 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4339
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY EARL CANNADY, a/k/a Camp Earl,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00258-D-1)
Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Cannady pled guilty to one count of possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and a
quantity of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). The district court imposed a sentence of 384 months in
prison, and Cannady timely appealed. We affirm.
On appeal, Cannady argues that his guilty plea should be
vacated because parts of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 colloquy were
conducted jointly with several other defendants. Because
Cannady did not seek to withdraw his plea or object to the
proceeding, this claim is reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2005). To
succeed on this claim, Cannady must demonstrate: (1) there was
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his
substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-
34 (1993); United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th
Cir. 2007). Cannady’s claim is contradicted by the record. The
district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that
ensured that Cannady’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Cannady also argues that his sentence was excessive. This
court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007).
This review requires appellate consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.2
After determining whether the district court properly calculated
the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, this court must
consider whether the district court considered the factors set
out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), analyzed any arguments presented by
the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id.Here the district court imposed a sentence that was within
the properly calculated advisory guidelines range of 360 months
to life, and the record reveals that the court considered the
required statutory factors. We conclude the district court
imposed a reasonable sentence.
Cannady has made a motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief in this court. We grant the motion, but find that the
issue he raises, that police officers violated his Fourth
Amendment rights, is foreclosed by his unconditional plea of
guilty. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973).
Because we find that the district court conducted an
appropriate and thorough Rule 11 colloquy ensuring a voluntary
guilty plea and the sentence it imposed on Cannady was
reasonable, we affirm Cannady’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3