UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4851
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO LAMAR SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-5008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY ADAM DAVENPORT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District
Judge. (6:08-cr-00215-HFF-2; 6:08-cr-00215-HFF-1).
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina; James B. Loggins,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellants. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Co-defendants Antonio Lamar Scott and Troy Adam
Davenport, Jr., pled guilty to armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), (d) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006). They were both sentenced to 117 months’ imprisonment
and a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, their
respective attorneys have filed briefs pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in their view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. However, Scott’s
counsel questions the adequacy of Scott’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing, and Davenport’s attorney challenges the reasonableness
of Davenport’s sentence. Scott and Davenport were advised of
their right to file pro se supplemental briefs but have not done
so. The Government has declined to file reply briefs in both
cases. Finding no error, we affirm.
Scott’s counsel raises as a potential issue the
adequacy of the plea colloquy in light of the district court’s
failure to inform Scott that he had a right to persist in his
plea of not guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(B). Because
Scott 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 of
3
review). Our careful review of the record on appeal convinces
us that the district court’s omission did not affect Scott’s
substantial rights. See id.; United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d
400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussing factors courts should
consider in determining whether substantial rights affected in
decision to plead guilty).
Davenport’s counsel questions the reasonableness of
Davenport’s sentence. We review a criminal sentence for
reasonableness, using the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). We conclude that
Davenport’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively
reasonable. In this regard, we note that the district court
properly calculated Davenport’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable
presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence).
We have examined the entire record in these cases in
accordance with the requirements of Anders, and we find no
meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm both
judgments. 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
4
respective client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion 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
5