UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEITH LAMONT ELLISON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00030-RJC-1)
Submitted: April 30, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Lamont Ellison appeals his sentence to 180
months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent
to distribute and distribution of five or more grams of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 851
(2006), and using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006). Ellison’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion,
there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the
issues of whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 when accepting Ellison’s plea and whether his sentence is
reasonable. Ellison was notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Appellate counsel first questions whether the district
court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ellison’s
guilty plea. Specifically, he argues that the magistrate judge
failed to adequately inform Ellison regarding the nature of the
charges to which he was pleading, and failed to fully inquire
into the medications he was taking and his competency. Because
Ellison did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule
11 hearing for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record and
2
find no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of
Ellison’s guilty plea. The magistrate judge adequately informed
Ellison concerning the nature of the charges to which he was
pleading, and engaged in adequate inquiry to ensure that Ellison
was competent to enter the plea. Moreover, the district court
properly determined that Ellison understood the charges, the
potential penalties, and the consequences of his plea, and that
his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Appellate counsel next questions whether Ellison’s
sentence is reasonable. We review a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007).
The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such
as improperly calculating the guideline range. United States
v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128
S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the
totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Ellison, and his sentence is reasonable. As appellate counsel
concedes, Ellison was sentenced to the mandatory minimum terms
of imprisonment under the statutes of conviction. Accordingly,
the district court had no discretion to impose a lower sentence,
3
see United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.
2005), and Ellison’s sentence is per se reasonable. See United
States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
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