UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4906
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TREMAINE BERNARD COATS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00117)
Submitted: October 12, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David C. Sutton, SUTTON LAW OFFICES, P.A., Greenville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tremaine Bernard Coats pled guilty without the benefit of
a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute
more than fifty grams of crack cocaine and a quantity of heroin
(Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
traveling between North Carolina and New York to promote and
conduct an illegal drug business (Count 2), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1952 (2000). The district court sentenced Coats to a 151-
month term of imprisonment on Count 1 and to a concurrent sentence
of sixty months on Count 2. Coats appeals his convictions and
sentence. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the
colloquy held in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the
reasonableness of Coats’ sentence. Counsel states, however, that,
in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Coats was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. We affirm.
Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the
plea hearing but does not specify any deficiencies in the district
court’s Rule 11 inquiries. Because Coats did not move in the
district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground raised on
appeal, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.
2002) (discussing standard). Our careful review of the record
- 2 -
convinces us that the district court substantially complied with
the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Coats’ guilty plea and that
any omission on the court’s part did not affect Coats’ substantial
rights. Moreover, the district court ensured that Coats entered
his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported
by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Counsel also suggests that Coats’ sentence is
unreasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
courts must calculate the applicable guideline range after making
the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in
conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it
“is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”
Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]
sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is
presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,
341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).
Here, before the district court reentered the criminal
judgment to afford Coats an opportunity to appeal his sentence, see
- 3 -
United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993), the district
court resentenced Coats in accordance with Booker, properly
calculating the guideline range, appropriately treating the
guidelines as advisory, and considering the § 3553(a) factors.
Coats’ 151-month prison term on Count 1 is the bottom of the
guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence of life
imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.
2007), and his sentence on Count 2 is the statutory maximum of five
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3); USSG § 5G1.1(a). Finally,
neither Coats nor the record suggests any information so compelling
as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the properly
calculated guideline range is reasonable. We therefore conclude
that the sentence is reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we 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
- 4 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 5 -