UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4829
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GRAHAM PAGE SIPE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-JAB-2)
Submitted: March 31, 2010 Decided: April 19, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Darren Byers, LAW OFFICE OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander
Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Graham Page Sipe pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to armed bank robbery, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 2113 (2006), and was sentenced to sixty-three 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 issues for appeal.
Counsel nonetheless questions whether Sipe’s sentence is
reasonable. Sipe has not filed a pro se supplemental brief
despite receiving notice that he may do so, and the Government
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 a guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 for plain error. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). A review of Sipe’s Rule 11
hearing reveals that the district court complied with Rule 11’s
requirements. Sipe’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently made, with full knowledge of the consequences
attendant to his guilty plea. We therefore find that no plain
error occurred and affirm Sipe’s conviction.
We also find no error, plain or otherwise, with regard
to Sipe’s sentence and therefore affirm that sentence. Sipe’s
presentence investigation report properly placed him in a
2
category I criminal history and attributed him with a total
offense level of twenty-six, yielding a Guidelines range of
sixty-three to seventy-eight months. At sentencing, the
district court considered counsel’s motion for a downward
departure based on Sipe’s alleged diminished capacity, but
reasonably concluded that the circumstances of Sipe’s offense
rendered him ineligible for a downward departure. The district
court offered Sipe an opportunity to allocute and considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors before imposing Sipe’s
sentence.
We find that the district court appropriately treated
the Guidelines as advisory, adequately explained its rationale
for imposing Sipe’s sentence, and that the reasons relied upon
by the district court were individualized, plausible, and
justified the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district
court must “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”). Moreover, we find no
evidence to rebut the presumption this court accords Sipe’s
within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
3
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 Sipe, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Sipe 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 Sipe. 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