UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY DEAN BLAKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00783-HMH-1)
Submitted: June 16, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob
Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Dean Blake pled guilty to theft of Postal
Service money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500 (2006).
The district court sentenced Blake to twelve months in prison,
the top of the advisory guidelines range, and ordered the
sentence to run consecutively to his undischarged state
sentence. On appeal, Blake’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in
his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Blake was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Although counsel identifies no error in the plea
colloquy, we have reviewed the plea transcript and conclude that
the district court substantially complied with the mandates of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, in accepting Blake’s guilty plea. Although
the district court did not inform Blake of his right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E),
we find that the court’s omission did not affect Blake’s
decision to plead guilty. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing plain error standard
of review); United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.
1995) (discussing factors courts should consider in determining
whether substantial rights affected in decision to plead
2
guilty). Moreover, the district court ensured that Blake’s plea
was knowing and voluntary and was supported by a sufficient
factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Counsel suggests that the district court erred by
ordering Blake’s sentence to run consecutively to an
undischarged state sentence. An appellate court reviews a
sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This
review requires consideration of both the procedural and
substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
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. Gall, 552
U.S. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th
Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th
Cir. 2009). If there is no procedural error, the appellate
court reviews 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 it chose satisfied the standards set forth in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216
(4th Cir. 2010).
3
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed Blake’s
sentence and conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively
to the undischarged state sentence. The court considered the
facts of Blake’s case in imposing a consecutive sentence at the
top of the guidelines range. The court emphasized that Blake
had amassed twenty-six criminal history points (twice the number
required for placement in criminal history category VI) for his
repeated violations of the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b)
(2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Thus, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of the 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