United States v. Mclamore , 433 F. App'x 188 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4656
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRENCE D. MCLAMORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00288-MJP-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: June 2, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Ward Murphy, KOLB & MURPHY, Attorneys at Law, LLC,
Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina; Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence D. McLamore pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of firearms and
ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006). The district court
sentenced McLamore to fifteen years in prison and five years of
supervised release, and imposed a $100 special assessment. We
affirm.
On appeal, McLamore’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states
that he could find no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel
calls our attention to whether the district court fully complied
with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in taking McLamore’s
guilty plea as well as whether the sentence imposed was
reasonable.
Because McLamore did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26
(4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [McLamore] must
show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that
the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if McLamore
satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error remains
within [the Court’s] discretion, which [the Court] should not
2
exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no
errors warranting reversal of McLamore’s conviction.
We review McLamore’s sentence for reasonableness under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). McLamore received the minimum
sentence mandated by statute. Thus, his sentence was per se
reasonable and we find no abuse of the district court’s
discretion. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir. 2008). Although McLamore did not file a pro se
supplemental brief, we have reviewed the substantive allegations
he set forth in a pro se letter to this court. We find none of
his contentions meritorious.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm McLamore’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform McLamore, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If McLamore requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on McLamore.
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