UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDAL RENARDO FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:08-cr-01154-DCN-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: September 30, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Thomas
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kendal Fields pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm and ammunition. The district court imposed the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months in prison.
Counsel for Fields filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
the guilty plea and whether the court fashioned a reasonable
sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to
Rule 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of the record reveals
that the district court fully complied with the requirements and
there was no plain error in accepting Fields’ guilty plea.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
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, 49-50 (2007).
Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a sentence,
“whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
2
[g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 41.
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 Fields, appropriately treating the
sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and
considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Because of the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence, Fields’ guidelines range became 180 to 188
months. Fields’ 180-month sentence, which is the statutory
sentence the district court was required to impose, may be
presumed reasonable by this court. Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Fields, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Fields 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 Fields.
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