Filed: Dec. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. T’ ANTAE DEON LITTLE, a/k/a Tantae Deon Little, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00049-RLV-DCK-7) Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. T’ ANTAE DEON LITTLE, a/k/a Tantae Deon Little, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00049-RLV-DCK-7) Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
T’ ANTAE DEON LITTLE, a/k/a Tantae Deon Little,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00049-RLV-DCK-7)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
T’ Ante Deon Little pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011). The
district court accepted Little’s plea and sentenced him to 240
months in prison. Little timely appealed. On appeal, Little’s
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that he has reviewed the record and found no
meritorious issues for appeal. However, counsel questions
whether the district court erred in accepting Little’s guilty
plea and whether the district court’s chosen sentence is
reasonable. Little, informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, has not done so. The Government declined to
file a responsive brief.
First, counsel questions whether the district court
complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
Little’s guilty plea. “Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a
trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform
the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature
of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory
minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty,” and the various
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991); see Fed. R. Crim. P.
2
11(b). “In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11,
this court should accord deference to the trial court’s decision
as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the
defendant.” DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116.
Because Little did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th
Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the transcript of the plea
colloquy and determined that the magistrate judge complied with
the mandates of Rule 11. In accepting Little’s guilty plea, the
district court ensured that Little’s guilty plea was entered
knowingly and voluntarily and supported by an independent
factual basis. See
DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20. We
therefore affirm Little’s conviction.
Little also questions the reasonableness of his
sentence. We review a district court’s sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Pauley,
511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). The first step in
this review requires the court to assess procedural
reasonableness by ensuring that the district court committed no
significant procedural errors, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines range or failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. United States v. Boulware,
604 F.3d
3
832, 837-38 (4th Cir. 2010). We then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We
presume that a sentence within a properly-calculated Guidelines
range is reasonable. United States v. Allen,
491 F.3d 178, 193
(4th Cir. 2007). Our thorough review of the record assures us
that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. Substantively,
Little’s receipt of the statutorily mandated minimum sentence
renders his sentence per se reasonable. United States v.
Farrior,
535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we
affirm Little’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the judgment below. This court requires
that counsel inform Little, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Little 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
Little.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
