United States v. Lutz , 204 F. App'x 291 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4350
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ELLIOTT ALEXANDER LUTZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:05-cr-473-TLW)
    Submitted:   September 22, 2006           Decided:   October 30, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Earl Day, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Elliott Alexander Lutz appeals his conviction and sixty-
    five-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a
    computer and other materials containing child pornography that had
    been shipped or mailed in interstate commerce, in violation of 18
    U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Lutz’s counsel
    filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), challenging the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the
    reasonableness of Lutz’s sentence but stating that, in his view,
    there are no meritorious issues for appeal.     Lutz was informed of
    his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done
    so.   We affirm.
    Counsel questions whether the district court complied
    with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Lutz’s guilty plea.    Because
    Lutz did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district
    court, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11
    hearing for plain error.    United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    ,
    525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard).     Although the district
    court did not inform Lutz of its obligation to impose a $100
    special assessment or that the court could impose restitution, we
    find that Lutz’s substantial rights were not affected by these
    omissions.    See United States v. Goins, 
    51 F.3d 400
    , 402 (4th Cir.
    1995) (discussing factors courts should consider in determining
    whether substantial rights affected in decision to plead guilty);
    - 2 -
    cf. United States v. Fentress, 
    792 F.2d 461
    , 465-66 (4th Cir. 1986)
    (finding that district court’s failure to inform defendant of its
    authority to order restitution was harmless error where court had
    informed    defendant    that       he   faced     maximum    fine    in   excess   of
    restitution eventually ordered).               We have carefully reviewed the
    transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and conclude that the district
    court did not err in accepting Lutz’s guilty plea.
    Counsel     also    questions        whether     the   sixty-five-month
    sentence    imposed     by    the    district      court     is    reasonable.      In
    sentencing Lutz, the court considered the properly calculated
    advisory sentencing guidelines range and the factors set forth in
    
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3553
    (a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006).                        The sentence
    imposed is within the guidelines range and well below the ten-year
    statutory    maximum    set    forth      in   §   2252A(b)(2).         Under    these
    circumstances, we find that Lutz’s sentence is reasonable.                          See
    United States v. Johnson, 
    445 F.3d 339
    , 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A]
    sentence     within     the    proper      advisory        Guidelines      range    is
    presumptively reasonable.”).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record     for   any    meritorious        issues     and      have    found     none.
    Accordingly, we affirm Lutz’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
    - 3 -
    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
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-4350

Citation Numbers: 204 F. App'x 291

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023