UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4718
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVE M. SINGLETARY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-01314-JFA-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, II, Julius Ness
Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve M. Singletary appeals the fifty-seven month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of being
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel for Singletary filed a brief in
this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for
appeal, but questioning whether Singletary’s guilty plea was
valid and whether the district court imposed a reasonable
sentence. Singletary was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but did not do so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Because Singletary did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court or raise any objections to the
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, the colloquy is
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a defendant’s
guilty plea, a district court must address the defendant in open
court and ensure he understands, among other things, the nature
of the charge against him, the possible punishment he faces, and
the rights he relinquishes by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1). The court must also ensure that a sufficient factual
basis exists to support the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), and
that the plea is knowing and voluntary, Fed. R. Crim. P.
2
11(b)(2). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no
deficiencies in the colloquy conducted by the district court.
We conclude that the district court did not err in finding
Singletary’s guilty plea to be valid.
Counsel next challenges the reasonableness of
Singletary’s sentence, but does not specify any deficiencies.
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. This court must assess whether the district court properly
calculated the advisory 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. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576
(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany
every sentence.” (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter,
564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this
court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly
determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007).
We conclude that Singletary’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
3
properly calculated Singletary’s Guidelines range, treated the
Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its
sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the
case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Singletary has not
rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is
reasonable. Thus, 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 judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Singletary, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Singletary 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 Singletary.
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