The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4619
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
QUANMAINE DA-SHON BROWN, a/k/a Quan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:13-cr-00843-RBH-3)
Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Eutawville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quanmaine Da-Shon Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The
district court sentenced Brown to 120 months of imprisonment and
he now appeals. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there
are no meritorious issues for review. Finding no error, we
affirm.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court committed no error in accepting Brown’s
guilty plea and sentencing Brown to the statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment. The court complied with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Brown’s guilty
plea and we conclude that Brown’s plea was knowing and
voluntary. We further conclude that the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We have examined the entire record in accordance with the
requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Brown requests that a
2
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 Brown. 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