United States v. David Jackson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4664

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff ─ Appellee,

DAVID JACKSON,

Defendant ─ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00014-ICB-1)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Weese, Sheperdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Louise
Anna Forbes, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia; Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, David Jackson

pled guilty to distribution of cocaine base. The district court

sentenced him to 151 months of imprisonment. Jackson’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 Jackson’s

sentence was reasonable in light of his request for a variance

or a downward departure. Jackson was advised of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We

affirm.

In fulfilling our duty under Anders, we have reviewed

the guilty plea for any error, and find none. The district

court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting

Jackson’s guilty plea. The court ensured that Jackson

understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he

faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and

that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th

Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s conviction.

We have reviewed Jackson’s sentence and determined

that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed 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

2
district court followed the necessary procedural steps in

sentencing Jackson, 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 light of Jackson's individual

characteristics and circumstances. The district court

adequately explained its reasons for denying a variance, noting

that Jackson had at least seven prior felony convictions and had

sold drugs over the course of twenty years. We conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v.

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate

presumption of reasonableness to within Guidelines sentence).

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 Jackson, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED