UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4454
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER RAESEAN JOHNSON, a/k/a C-Murder,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00209-FL)
Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 21, 2008
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert J. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Raesean Johnson appeals his convictions
and 292-month sentence after he pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine
(Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West
2000 & Supp. 2008). Johnson’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred by denying Johnson’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea and whether the sentence is reasonable.
Johnson has filed a pro se supplemental brief. ∗ Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
Counsel first challenges the district court’s denial
of Johnson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Withdrawal of
a guilty plea is not a matter of right. United States v.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The defendant
bears the burden of showing a “fair and just reason” for the
withdrawal of his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
“[A] ‘fair and just’ reason . . . is one that essentially
∗
We have reviewed the claims raised in Johnson’s
supplemental informal brief and find them to be without merit.
2
challenges . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding . . . .”
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en
banc). An appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding, however,
“raise[s] a strong presumption that the plea is final and
binding.” Id. at 1394.
Here, the district court applied the factors courts
must consider in determining whether to permit withdrawal of a
guilty plea. See Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. Our review of the
record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Johnson’s motion to withdraw. See United
States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating
standard of review). We therefore affirm Johnson’s convictions.
Counsel also questions whether Johnson’s 292-month
career offender sentence is reasonable. This court reviews the
sentence imposed by the district court for abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). If the
appellate court concludes that the sentence is “procedurally
sound,” the court then considers the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence. Id. This court presumes that a sentence
imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is
reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69
(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within—
Guidelines sentence).
3
In light of Gall, we find that Johnson’s sentence is
reasonable. First, the district court committed no procedural
error, appropriately treating the Guidelines as advisory and
considering the Guidelines range and the factors in 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) before imposing a 292-month
prison term, a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range.
Applying the presumption of reasonableness and finding that
Johnson has failed to rebut the presumption on appeal, we
conclude that his 292-month sentence is reasonable. See Go, 517
F.3d at 218; see also Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462-69.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
for any meritorious issues for appeal and have found none.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw. 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