UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMAA ATO WASHINGTON, a/k/a Jamaa Washington, a/k/a
Jamal Ato Washington, a/k/a Jonathan White, a/k/a Timothy
White, a/k/a Jamaal Washington, a/k/a Jamar Washington,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00830-PMD-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Guy J. Vitetta, Daniel Island, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamaa Ato Washington pled guilty to possession of a
firearm after having been convicted of a felony offense. The
district court sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment—the
statutory maximum sentence. Washington’s attorney filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether Washington’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. 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
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the
transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the
district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting
Washington’s guilty plea. The court ensured that Washington
understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he
faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and
that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Washington’s conviction.
We have also reviewed Washington’s sentence and
determined that it was properly calculated and that the sentence
imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
2
51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th
Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary
procedural steps in sentencing Washington, appropriately treated
the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and
considered the applicable guidelines range, and weighed the
relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate
presumption of reasonableness to within guidelines sentence).
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court
requires that counsel inform Washington, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Washington 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 Washington. 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
3