UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RUSTY MARK EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00042-GMG-DJJ-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: September 13, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Weese, Sheperdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Jarod J.
Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rusty Mark Edwards pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute
crack cocaine. He was sentenced to sixty months in prison.
Edwards now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning whether there were errors at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing and at sentencing, but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Edwards has filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising two issues. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Our review of the transcript of Edwards’ Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 hearing discloses that the district court substantially
complied with the Rule, Edwards’ guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the plea. *
We accordingly affirm Edwards’ conviction.
We review Edwards’ sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
*
We find no merit to the arguments raised in the pro se
brief. First, Edwards’ valid guilty plea waives his right to
challenge the validity of a search of his home. See Tollett v.
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Second, we reject Edwards’
conclusory claim that his guilty plea was invalid because it was
based in part on counsel’s alleged assertion that Edwards would
receive probation, not a term of imprisonment. Edwards’ sworn
representations at the Rule 11 hearing are at odds with this
claim. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). This review requires
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. We first assess
whether the district court properly calculated the advisory
Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id.
at 49-51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th
Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “examin[ing] the
totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence
. . . satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United
States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
We conclude that Edwards’ sentence is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The court correctly calculated
Edwards Guidelines’ range to be 87-108 months and adequately
explained its reasons for imposing a variant sentence of sixty
months-the statutory minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)
(2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Edwards’ conviction and sentence. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is denied at this time. This court requires
3
counsel, in writing, to inform Edwards of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Edwards requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy of the motion was served on Edwards. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4