United States v. Drayton , 212 F. App'x 248 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4227
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL VASHAWN DRAYTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00016)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 10, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith M. Stroud, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert
John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Vashawn Drayton appeals his conviction and 272-
month sentence following his guilty plea for bank robbery and armed
bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2133(a) and (d)(West
Supp. 2002), and related firearm offenses, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(West Supp. 2002) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(West
Supp. 2002). Drayton’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether his
conviction was based upon evidence obtained in violation of due
process, whether the district court erred in finding Drayton’s
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the district
court erred in imposing his sentence. The Government did not file
a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Drayton
did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Drayton avers that he was denied due process and
constitutional protections against self-incrimination when he was
purportedly “tricked” by police into confessing. Drayton’s guilty
plea waives consideration of any antecedent non-jurisdictional
error. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).
Next Drayton claims that his guilty plea was not knowing
and voluntary. Drayton made sworn declarations at the Rule 11
proceeding that carry a strong presumption of verity, Blackledge v.
- 2 -
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977), and those statements demonstrate
the validity of the plea. Drayton has not presented compelling
reasons why his statements should not be presumptively accepted as
true. Crawford v. United States, 519 F.2d 347, 349 (4th. Cir.
1975), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Whitley, 759
F.2d 327 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court proceedings
demonstrate that Drayton knowingly and voluntarily entered his
plea, and this claim lacks merit.
Finally, Drayton suggests that the district court erred
in imposing his sentence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. After
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court is
no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing
guidelines. However, in imposing a sentence post-Booker, courts
still must calculate the applicable guideline range after making
the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and
§ 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006). This court will
affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily
prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] sentence within the
proper advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir. 2006).
- 3 -
The district court sentenced Drayton post-Booker and
appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory. The court
sentenced Drayton after considering and examining the sentencing
guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as instructed by Booker.
Drayton’s 272-month sentence is the lowest appropriate guideline
sentence he could have received. It is well below the statutory
maximum of life imprisonment for the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) charge.
Finally, neither Drayton nor the record suggests any information so
compelling as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the
properly calculated guideline range is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Drayton’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Drayton, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Drayton 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 representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Drayton.
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 -