UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RON TYRONE SOWELL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00906-RBH-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ron Tyrone Sowell, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) (2012), and received a within-
Guidelines sentence of 115 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Sowell’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to consider
whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 in accepting Sowell’s guilty plea and whether the district
court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence.
Sowell has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging various
sentencing enhancements. The Government declined to file a
response. We affirm.
Because Sowell did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing
is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 524–26 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain
error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error
was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993). In the guilty plea
context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain
error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable
probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the
district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v.
2
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Our thorough
review of the record reveals that the district court fully
complied with Rule 11 in conducting the guilty plea colloquy.
Thus, we conclude that Sowell’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and we
find no error in the district court’s acceptance of his guilty
plea.
Next, counsel challenges as inadequate the district
court’s explanation of the sentence. We review any sentence for
reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence is
procedurally reasonable if, among other things, the court
sufficiently explains its reasons for imposing it. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). While
every sentence requires an adequate explanation, when the
district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range,
“the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy.” United
States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court provided an adequate explanation of Sowell’s sentence and
therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing its chosen
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have examined Sowell’s
pro se claims and the entire record for potentially meritorious
3
issues and have found none. We affirm the judgment of the
district court. This court requires that counsel inform Sowell,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move to withdraw.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Sowell. 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