UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL RAY BUIE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-00964-TLW-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Ray Buie pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a drug trafficking offense. The district
court sentenced him to 192 months’ imprisonment. Buie’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 fully complied with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Buie’s guilty plea.
Buie was informed of the 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
Rule 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 Buie’s guilty plea.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th
Cir. 1991). Buie was informed of the elements of the charges
against him, the rights he gave up by pleading guilty, and the
mandatory minimum and the maximum penalties he faced. The court
determined that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea
2
and that Buie’s plea was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we
affirm Buie’s convictions.
We have reviewed Buie’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 the
necessary procedural steps in sentencing Buie, properly
calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range,
appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory,
and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in
relation to Buie’s criminal conduct and his individual
circumstances. On the Government’s motion, the court granted a
downward departure to 192 months based on Buie’s substantial
assistance. We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in determining Buie’s sentence and that the
sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Buie’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Buie, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Buie 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Buie. 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