eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2013-11

United States v. Ron Sowell, Jr. , 546 F. App'x 253 ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RON TYRONE SOWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00906-RBH-1)
Submitted:   November 19, 2013             Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WYNN and    FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.    Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ron Tyrone Sowell, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2012), and received a within-
Guidelines sentence of 115 months’ imprisonment.                          On appeal,
Sowell’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to consider
whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Sowell’s guilty plea and whether the district
court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence.
Sowell has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging various
sentencing    enhancements.         The    Government         declined    to   file    a
response.    We affirm.
Because Sowell did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing
is reviewed for plain error only.                     United States v. Martinez,
    277 F.3d 517
    , 524–26 (4th Cir. 2002).                         To demonstrate plain
error, a defendant must show: (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 
    (1993).                    In the guilty plea
context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain
error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable
probability    that    he   would    not       have    pled    guilty    but   for   the
district     court’s    Rule    11     omissions.               United    States      v.
2
Massenburg,
    564 F.3d 337
    , 343 (4th Cir. 2009).                            Our thorough
review    of    the    record    reveals      that    the    district       court      fully
complied with Rule 11 in conducting the guilty plea colloquy.
Thus, we       conclude   that    Sowell’s       guilty      plea   was     knowing     and
voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and we
find no error in the district court’s acceptance of his guilty
plea.
Next,   counsel    challenges         as    inadequate     the    district
court’s explanation of the sentence.                  We review any sentence for
reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States,
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).                          A sentence is
procedurally       reasonable      if,       among    other       things,    the       court
sufficiently      explains       its    reasons      for    imposing      it.       United
States v. Carter,
    564 F.3d 325
    , 328 (4th Cir. 2009).                                   While
every    sentence      requires        an    adequate       explanation,        when     the
district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range,
“the    explanation     need     not    be   elaborate       or   lengthy.”         United
States v. Hernandez,
    603 F.3d 267
    , 271 (4th Cir. 2010).                                  Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court provided an adequate explanation of Sowell’s sentence and
therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing its chosen
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined Sowell’s
pro se claims and the entire record for potentially meritorious
3
issues and have found none.               We affirm the judgment of the
district court.       This court requires that counsel inform Sowell,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would     be    frivolous,     then   counsel      may   move    to   withdraw.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Sowell.        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
4