United States v. Tracy Andrews, Jr. , 585 F. App'x 6 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRACY DEWAYNE ANDREWS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-CCE-2)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & TALCOTT, L.L.P.,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael
Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracy Dewayne Andrews, Jr., appeals his conviction and
120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Andrews’ counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Andrews was
notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response
brief. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Before accepting Andrews’ guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Andrews’ plea was knowing,
voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court followed all requisite procedural steps in sentencing
Andrews, by calculating the correct Guidelines range;
considering the parties’ arguments, Andrews’ allocution, and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors; and providing an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Andrews’
within-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable
on appeal, and he does not meet his burden to rebut this
2
presumption. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375,
379 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Andrews, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Andrews 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
Andrews.
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