UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4034
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEYO JENNINGS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00595-PMD-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Keyo Jennings pled guilty to one count of being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to
120 months in prison. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
after a review of the record, he has found no meritorious
grounds for appeal. The Anders brief nonetheless indicates that
the issues raised by the appeal include whether: (i) the
district court erred when it found that Jennings possessed the
subject firearm in connection with another felony offense; (ii)
the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it
accepted Jennings’ guilty plea; and (iii) Jennings’ 120-month
sentence is reasonable. Jennings has filed a pro se
supplemental brief raising several issues, including whether the
district court correctly calculated his Guidelines range. The
Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,
we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11
for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002). A review of Jennings’ Rule 11 hearing reveals
that the district court complied with Rule 11’s requirements.
Jennings’ plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently
2
made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to his
guilty plea. We therefore find that no plain error occurred and
affirm Jennings’ conviction.
We also affirm Jennings’ sentence. Jennings’
presentence investigation report properly placed him in a
category V criminal history and attributed him with a total
offense level of twenty-five, yielding a Guidelines range of 100
to 125 months in prison. 1 Because the statutory maximum sentence
applicable to Jennings’ conviction was ten years, however,
Jennings’ Guidelines range was appropriately calculated at 100
to 120 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
At sentencing, the district court afforded counsel an
opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded
Jennings an opportunity to allocute, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors before imposing Jennings’ sentence, and
adequately explained its rationale for imposing Jennings’
particular sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district court must
1
We conclude that the district court correctly applied the
four-level enhancement to Jennings’ offense level, pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2008),
based on the Government’s evidence that Jennings possessed the
firearm and ammunition in connection with his commission of
another felony offense. Jennings’ assertion to the contrary,
the district court appropriately granted Jennings a three-level
reduction in his offence level based on his acceptance of
responsibility, in accordance with USSG § 3E1.1 (2008).
3
“place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
particular facts of the case before it” and that the
“individualized assessment . . . must provide a rationale
tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to
permit meaningful appellate review”) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Because this court presumes Jennings’
within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since Jennings has
presented no evidence to rebut this presumption, we affirm
Jennings’ 120-month sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Jennings, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Jennings 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 Jennings. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
We have considered the remaining arguments raised by
Jennings in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be
without merit.
4
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5