UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4675
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUIS SENTEL TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:12-cr-00519-TLW-1)
Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marquis Sentel Taylor pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 280 grams or
more of cocaine base (“crack”). Following a four-level downward
departure, he received a 120-month sentence. On appeal, counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but raising two issues: (1) whether the district court
erred in conducting Taylor’s plea hearing; and (2) whether the
district court erred in sentencing him. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
Taylor first questions the validity of his guilty
plea. Our review of the plea hearing reveals that the district
court fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
in conducting the plea colloquy. See United States v. General,
278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of
review). Thus, the court did not err in accepting as knowing
and voluntary Taylor’s guilty plea.
Second, we review a criminal sentence, whether inside
or outside the Sentencing Guidelines range, for reasonableness,
“under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012); see Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this
2
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include
failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any
deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If,
and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
We conclude that there was no procedural error at
sentencing and that the ten year sentence was substantively
reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
record in this case, including the issues raised in Taylor’s pro
se supplemental brief, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Taylor’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Taylor 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
3
was served on Taylor. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4