UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4961
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff ─ Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4