UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD PRESTON KNIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00031-nkm-5)
Submitted: April 21, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph G. Painter, Jr., JOSEPH GRAHAM PAINTER, JR., P.C.,
Blacksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Ray Burton Fitzgerald,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lloyd Preston Knight
pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Knight to 121
months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the low end of his advisory
Guidelines range. Knight’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court erred in finding the
relevant conduct necessary to support its calculation of
Knight’s advisory sentencing range. Though advised of his right
to do so, Knight has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The
Government declined to file a brief.
Pursuant to Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the
record, and first conclude that the district court complied with
the mandates of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in
accepting Knight’s guilty plea, ensuring that Knight entered his
plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported
by an independent factual basis. See United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 62 (2002); United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652,
659-60 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm Knight’s
conviction.
2
We review Knight’s sentence for reasonableness under
an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Id. In determining procedural
reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. “Regardless of whether the district
court imposes an above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it
must place on the record an individualized assessment based on
the particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Knight asks this court to review the district court’s
relevant conduct determination. At sentencing, Knight
vigorously contested the probation officer’s finding that he was
accountable for between 50 and 150 grams of “ice”
methamphetamine, as opposed to a mixture or substance containing
a detectable amount of methamphetamine. However, the Government
presented testimony detailing Knight’s repeated admissions to
buying and selling “ice.” Accordingly, we find the Government
amply satisfied its burden of proving the relevant conduct by a
3
preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Grubbs, 585
F.3d 793, 799 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A] sentencing court may
consider uncharged . . . conduct in determining a sentence, as
long as that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the
evidence.”).
Our review of Knight’s presentence report and the
sentencing transcript leads us to conclude the district court
properly calculated Knight’s advisory Guidelines range, and
committed no plain procedural error in sentencing Knight. See
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-78, 580 (4th Cir.
2010). Moreover, we will afford Knight’s within-Guidelines
sentence a presumption of substantive reasonableness. See
United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 267 (4th Cir. 2010); see
also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (upholding
rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines
sentence). For these reasons, we affirm Knight’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we 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
4
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
5