UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4886
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO STANFORD RIVERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:08-cr-00142-DCN-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Antonio S. Rivers pled
guilty to knowing possession by a felon of a firearm and
ammunition which had traveled in interstate commerce, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e)(1) (2006)
(Count 1), and knowing use and carrying of a firearm during and
in relation to, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of, a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006) (Count 3). The district court
sentenced Rivers to 106 months’ imprisonment, at the low end of
a properly-calculated guidelines range, and a three-year term of
supervised release on each count, to run concurrently. Rivers’
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court complied
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in accepting Rivers’ guilty plea, and
whether the district court abused its discretion by not imposing
a below-guidelines sentence, but concluding that no meritorious
issues for appeal exist. Rivers was advised of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so.
Rivers first challenges the adequacy of his plea
hearing, but concludes that there were no deficiencies in the
district court’s Rule 11 inquiries. We find that the district
court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting
Rivers’ guilty plea and properly determined both that Rivers was
2
entering his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and
that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis.
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir.
1991).
Rivers also questions whether the district court
abused its discretion in failing to impose a sentence below the
applicable guidelines range. Our review of the record discloses
that the district court followed the necessary procedural steps
in sentencing Rivers, properly calculated the guidelines range,
and considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
We also find that the district court meaningfully articulated
its decision to sentence Rivers within the advisory guidelines
range. See id.; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness on appeal for within-guidelines sentence). Thus,
we conclude that Rivers’ sentence is reasonable.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders
and affirm Rivers’ conviction and sentence. 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
3
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