UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4214
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD RICHARDSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00454-WO-2)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry
Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Richardson pled guilty to possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced
him to 110 months’ imprisonment. Richardson’s counsel filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion by imposing a variance
sentence. Richardson was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so. 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
Richardson’s guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm
Richardson’s conviction.
We have reviewed Richardson’s sentence and conclude
that it was properly calculated and is reasonable. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas,
599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed
2
the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Richardson,
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 in relation to Richardson’s criminal conduct and his
individual circumstances. We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the variance sentence
of 110 months. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.
Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir.) (holding that “due
deference” is given to the district court’s decision to impose
variance sentence), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Richardson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Richardson 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 Richardson. 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