United States v. Anthony , 201 F. App'x 958 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESSE LEE ANTHONY, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00196)
Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David C. Smith, SMITH & SCANTLEBURY, L.C., Bluefield, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; John Lanier File, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Lee Anthony, III, appeals from his conviction
pursuant to a guilty plea to distribution of crack cocaine and
money laundering and the resulting 151-month sentence. Anthony’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but addressing the validity of Anthony’s plea and sentence.
Anthony was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not done so. Because our review of the record
discloses no reversible error, we affirm.
We find that Anthony’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. Anthony was properly advised of his rights, the
offenses charged, and the maximum sentence for the offenses. The
court also determined that there was an independent factual basis
for the plea and that the plea was not coerced or influenced by any
promises. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970);
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We find that the district court properly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing
factors before imposing the 151-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); see United States v. Hughes,
401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that
the sentence imposed was reasonable. See United States v. Green,
- 2 -
436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence imposed within the
properly calculated [g]uidelines range . . . is presumptively
reasonable.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Anthony’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 the client. 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 -