UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4896
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STARKS FINCHER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-01219-GRA)
Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Starks Fincher,
Jr., pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of cocaine base, possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 262 months in prison.
He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether
Fincher’s sentence is reasonable but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Fincher was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such
a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy
discloses full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Further,
the record reveals that Fincher entered his plea voluntarily and
knowingly and that there was a factual basis for the plea.
Finally, we have identified no viable appellate issues related
to the convictions.
Turning to Fincher’s sentence, our review is for
reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In imposing
sentence, the district court properly calculated Fincher’s
advisory Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) sentencing factors, as Gall requires. See id. Fincher’s
2
262-month sentence falls within his Guidelines range of 262-327
months; we afford a presumption of reasonableness to this
within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d
216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an
above, below, or within-Guidelines sentence, it must place on
the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the
particular facts of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, the district
court made no such individualized assessment. However, Fincher
did not object to this omission, and our review therefore is for
plain error. See United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 569-70
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 645 (2009). At sentencing,
defense counsel requested a sentence at the low end of Fincher’s
advisory Guidelines range, and Fincher received the lowest
possible sentence within that range. We conclude that there was
no plain error because the omission did not affect Fincher’s
substantial rights.
We accordingly affirm. In accordance with Anders, we
have thoroughly reviewed the record for any meritorious issues
and have found none. We therefore affirm. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
3
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the
motion was served on the client. 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