UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAREEM ABDUL SLADE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-01288-PMD)
Submitted: June 30, 2009 Decided: July 15, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. John Charles Duane, Eric John
Klumb, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Abdul Slade appeals from his conviction and
188-month sentence following a guilty plea to one count of
possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)
(2006). Slade’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
Slade’s guilty plea, and whether Slade’s sentence is reasonable.
Slade was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not do so. We affirm.*
During Slade’s plea hearing, in compliance with Rule
11, the district court properly informed Slade of the rights he
was forfeiting as a result of his plea and the nature of the
charges and penalties he faced, found that Slade was competent
and entering his plea voluntarily, and determined there was a
sufficient factual basis for the plea. Therefore, the record
establishes Slade knowingly and voluntarily entered into his
guilty plea with a full understanding of the consequences and
*
This case was placed in abeyance for United States v.
Antonio, 311 F. App’x 679 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 07-4791). We
conclude that our decision in Antonio does not affect the
outcome of Slade’s appeal
2
there was no error in the district court’s acceptance of his
plea.
Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Slade.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in
conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct.
586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s
imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable
guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be
reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th
Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Slade, appropriately treating the sentencing
guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. The court found that a sentence of 188-months’
imprisonment was appropriate, specifically highlighting Slade’s
educational, criminal, employment, and familial background, as
well as his conduct and culpability. Furthermore, Slade’s
sentence, which is the bottom of the applicable guidelines range
3
and below the statutory maximum of forty years in prison, is
presumed reasonable on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Slade.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record 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