UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TENEKA CARNA BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00626-RBH-1)
Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, PC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Teneka Carna Bailey pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with the intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack and a
quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). At
sentencing, Bailey was sentenced to the statutory minimum of ten
years’ imprisonment. Her counsel filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for the court’s
consideration whether the district court complied with Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Bailey’s
guilty plea and whether the sentence was reasonable. Bailey did
not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government also did
not file a brief. We affirm.
We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and conclude
that Bailey’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that the
district court complied with Rule 11. Accordingly, we affirm
the conviction.
We review a 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. As to procedural reasonableness, this court must
assess whether the district court properly calculated the
2
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.; see also
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n
individualized explanation must accompany every sentence.”);
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009)
(same). An extensive explanation is not required as long as
this court is satisfied “‘that the district court has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
its own legal decision making authority.’” United States v.
Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (alterations omitted)).
We conclude that the district court’s sentence was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court did
not have authority to impose a sentence below the statutory
minimum.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Bailey’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Bailey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Bailey 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Bailey. 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