The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4929
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TREVOR SENARDO BROWN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00450-WO-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2010 Decided: November 1, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON, BLACKMON, LEE & LAWSON,
LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander
Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Trevor Senardo Brown appeals the district court’s
judgment imposing a sentence of 120 months in prison and eight
years of supervised release after he pled guilty to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). Brown’s attorney has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting, in his opinion, there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raising the issues of whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Brown’s guilty
plea, and whether the court erred or abused its discretion in
sentencing him. Brown was notified of his right to file a pro
se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Appellate counsel first questions whether the district
court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Brown’s
guilty plea, but he alleges no error by the court. Because
Brown did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty
plea, we review this challenge for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Thus, it
is Brown’s burden to show (1) error; (2) that is plain; (3)
affecting his substantial rights; and (4) we should exercise our
discretion to notice the error. Id. at 529. To show his
substantial rights were affected, Brown must demonstrate that
absent the error, he would not have entered his guilty plea.
2
Id. at 532. We may consider the entire record to determine the
effect of any error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55,
74-75. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has
not shown any plain error affecting his substantial rights.
Appellate counsel next questions whether there is any
error in Brown’s sentence, but he alleges no error. We review a
sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us
to ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error, such as improperly calculating the guideline
range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed,
taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. On appeal, we presume that a sentence within a
properly calculated guideline range is reasonable. United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err or abuse its discretion in sentencing
Brown, and his sentence is reasonable. The district court
sentenced Brown to the statutory mandatory minimum term of 120
months in prison and eight years of supervised release based on
Brown’s stipulation that the offense involved five or more grams
3
of cocaine base and the Government’s information subjecting him
to an increased penalty for his prior felony drug offense
conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). As the district
court correctly explained at sentencing, the court had no
discretion to sentence Brown below the statutory mandatory
minimum, see United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th
Cir. 2005), and his sentence to the statutory mandatory minimum
is per se reasonable, see United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d
210, 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 743 (2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 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 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