UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD RAY CROWDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-4385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ORAGAIL CROWDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00886-RBH-1; 4:05-cr-00886-RBH-2)
Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Aileen Clare, Assistant Federal Public
Defenders, Florence, South Carolina; Ray Coit Yarborough, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellants. William Earl Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Ray Crowder and his wife, Oragail Crowder, pled
guilty to a single count of bank fraud and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2 (2000). They were sentenced to
46 months and 37 months of imprisonment, respectively. On appeal,
counsel have filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), in which they state there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but question whether the district court fully
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting the Crowders’ guilty
pleas and whether their sentences are reasonable. With respect to
the sentences, specifically, the Crowders maintain that the
district court erred in denying their motions for a downward
departure and/or variance sentence.
Because the Crowders did not move in the district court
to withdraw their guilty pleas, their challenge to the adequacy of
the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that
“plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of
forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”). Our review of the record
leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with
the mandate of Rule 11 in accepting the Crowders’ guilty pleas.
At the sentencing hearing, the Crowders acknowledged that
the Guidelines range was properly calculated. The district court
explicitly treated the Guidelines as advisory, and sentenced the
- 3 -
Crowders after considering the Guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007) factors, and counsel’s
arguments. Thus, we conclude that the Crowders’ sentences, which
are within the statutory maximum and the Guidelines range, are
reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th Cir.
2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and the issues raised in the pro se
supplemental brief and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform their clients, in writing, of
their right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the clients request that a petition be filed,
but counsel believe that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the clients. 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 -