UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AVERY TERRELL HAIGLER, a/k/a Joshua Damien Riley, a/k/a A-
Town, a/k/a A,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (5:08-cr-00589-MBS-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 2, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Leo Finney, THE FINNEY LAW FIRM, INC., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Avery Terrell Haigler, a/k/a Joshua Damien Riley,
a/k/a A-town, a/k/a A, pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to two counts in his third superseding indictment:
Count 1, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine
base (“crack”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and
Count 4, conspiracy to launder drug proceeds, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i), and (B)(ii) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2010). He was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment on
each count to run concurrently.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether the district court conducted Haigler’s
guilty plea in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and (2)
whether Haigler’s sentence was procedurally and substantively
reasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, because Haigler did not move in the district
court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in his Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error, United States
v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002), and we find none
on appeal. Second, we review a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.
Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). This review requires
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We find no
procedural or substantive error. Indeed, Haigler was facing a
mandatory-minimum sentence of life for Count 1 and was the
beneficiary of the Government’s motion for a downward departure
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2009).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case, including the issues raised in Haigler’s pro se
supplemental brief, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Haigler’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Haigler, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Haigler 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 Haigler. 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