United States v. Cannady

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2010
• Docket: 09-4339
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Certiorari dismissed, August 3, 2010

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY EARL CANNADY, a/k/a Camp Earl,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00258-D-1)

Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Rodney Cannady pled guilty to one count of possession with

intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and a

quantity of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(2006). The district court imposed a sentence of 384 months in

prison, and Cannady timely appealed. We affirm.

On appeal, Cannady argues that his guilty plea should be

vacated because parts of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 colloquy were

conducted jointly with several other defendants. Because

Cannady did not seek to withdraw his plea or object to the

proceeding, this claim is reviewed for plain error. United

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2005). To

succeed on this claim, Cannady must demonstrate: (1) there was

error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his

substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-

34 (1993); United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th

Cir. 2007). Cannady’s claim is contradicted by the record. The

district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that

ensured that Cannady’s plea was knowing and voluntary.

Cannady also argues that his sentence was excessive. This

court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007).

This review requires appellate consideration of both the

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.

2 After determining whether the district court properly calculated

the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, this court must

consider whether the district court considered the factors set

out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), analyzed any arguments presented by

the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Id.

Here the district court imposed a sentence that was within

the properly calculated advisory guidelines range of 360 months

to life, and the record reveals that the court considered the

required statutory factors. We conclude the district court

imposed a reasonable sentence.

Cannady has made a motion to file a pro se supplemental

brief in this court. We grant the motion, but find that the

issue he raises, that police officers violated his Fourth

Amendment rights, is foreclosed by his unconditional plea of

guilty. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973).

Because we find that the district court conducted an

appropriate and thorough Rule 11 colloquy ensuring a voluntary

guilty plea and the sentence it imposed on Cannady was

reasonable, we affirm Cannady’s conviction and sentence. 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