UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN G. VANLEEN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00027-JPB-1)
Submitted: May 6, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric S. Black, Berkley Springs, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian G. Vanleen pled guilty to transporting obscene
material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462 (2006). The district
court sentenced Vanleen to forty-six months’ imprisonment, which
fell within his advisory guidelines range. Vanleen timely noted
his appeal, and we affirm.
Vanleen first claims that his conviction should be
vacated because his guilty plea was not knowingly and
voluntarily made with knowledge of the full consequences of his
plea. In a post-sentencing challenge to a conviction by guilty
plea, a “reversal is warranted only if the plea proceedings were
marred by a fundamental defect that inherently resulted in a
complete miscarriage of justice, or in omissions inconsistent
with rudimentary demands for fair procedures.” United States v.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 425 (4th Cir. 2000). In support of his
claim, Vanleen states that his plea was unknowing “because he
was under a clear, but mistaken, impression that he would
receive a sentence of probation.” Vanleen’s assertion is belied
by his statements during his Rule 11 hearing. The record
reveals that the magistrate judge conducted a thorough Rule 11
hearing free from any fundamental defect. We accordingly reject
Valeen’s first claim.
Vanleen next claims his sentence was unreasonable.
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court under
2
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. United States v.
Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). In reviewing a
sentence, we must first ensure that the district court committed
no procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence - including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). If there are
no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. A substantive
reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citation omitted). This
court presumes a sentence within the guidelines range to be
reasonable. Id. Even if we would have reached a different
result, this fact alone is insufficient to justify reversal of
the district court. Id. at 474.
We have reviewed the record, conclude the district
court made the requisite “individualized assessment based on the
facts presented,” United States v. Carter, ___ F.3d ___, ___,
2009 WL 1110786, at *2, *4 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2009)
(No. 08-4643) (quoting Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
3
597 (2007)), and discern no basis for overturning Vanleen’s
sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4