United States v. Eric Davis , 545 F. App'x 260 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC LAMONTE DAVIS, a/k/a Eric Davis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00058-GMG-DJJ-3)
Submitted: September 25, 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas Forrest Colvin, THE LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS COLVIN,
ESQ., PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen
Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Lamonte Davis appeals his conviction and
ninety-two month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Davis’ counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Davis was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se
brief but has not done so. Following careful review of the
record, we affirm.
Before accepting Davis’ guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Davis’ plea was knowing
and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). The court subsequently followed all necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Davis, properly calculating his
Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and the parties’ arguments, and providing an individualized
assessment based on the facts presented. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Davis’ within-Guidelines
sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he
has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment and deny counsel’s request to withdraw
from representation. This court requires that counsel inform
Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of
the United States for further review. If Davis 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 Davis.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3