United States v. Piles

342 F. App'x 888

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMAL PILES, a/k/a Marty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00270-WDQ-8)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur S. Cheslock, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jamal Piles, a/k/a Marty, pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Piles to 135

months’ imprisonment. Piles’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in

his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel,

however, asks this court to review the validity of Piles’ guilty

plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. Piles has not

filed a pro se supplemental brief and the Government has not

filed a brief. We affirm.

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 he faces, and the various rights he is

relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for

the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th

Cir. 1991). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure

that the plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and

voluntarily. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002).

Because Piles did not move in the district court to

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is

2 reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Piles]

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and

that the error affected his substantial rights.” United

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if

Piles satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error

remains within [the Court’s] discretion, which [the Court]

should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s]

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Our review of the transcript reveals substantial

compliance with the requirements of Rule 11, and we conclude

that Piles pled guilty knowingly and voluntarily.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v.

Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we

first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,”

including: “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating)

the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory,

failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors,

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .”

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The Court then “‘consider[s] the

3 substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128

S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). If the

sentence is within a properly calculated guidelines range, we

apply a presumption of reasonableness on appellate review. See

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007);

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-

69 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness on

appellate review for within-guidelines sentence).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

district court did not commit reversible procedural error in

sentencing Piles, and that his within-guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Piles, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Piles 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 Piles.

4 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