United States v. John Singleton

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff ─ Appellee,

JOHN SINGLETON,

Defendant ─ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00914-PMD-2)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter S. Ameika, Jr., AMEIKA LAW OFFICES, Summerville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

John Singleton pled guilty to conspiracy to embezzle

money from a federally-funded organization. The district court

sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Singleton’s attorney

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

Singleton’s sentence was reasonable in light of his request for

a variance or a downward departure. Singleton 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. Our review of the

transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the

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

accepting Singleton’s guilty plea. The court ensured that

Singleton 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 Singleton’s

conviction.

We have reviewed Singleton’s sentence and determined

that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed

2
was 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 Singleton, 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

Singleton's individual characteristics and circumstances. The

district court adequately explained its reasons for denying a

variance, noting that Singleton had the benefit of education and

a masters degree, he was a role model in the community helping

the unfortunate, and yet, while employed with an agency

entrusted to aid the poor of the community, Singleton used his

position to steal the money designated for the needy. Because

the court adequately explained its reasons for imposing sentence

at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, we conclude that

the sentence is not an abuse of discretion. 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 Singleton, in

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

3
United States for further review. If Singleton 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 Singleton. 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