UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST MONDELL SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00499-RMG-1)
Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Thomas McBratney, III, MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, PA, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Mondell Sanders pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and mail fraud, wire fraud, and
conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349 (2012). The district court sentenced
Sanders to 30 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay
$13,376.78 in restitution. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating
that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Sanders’ guilty plea and whether Sanders’ sentence is
reasonable. Sanders was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We affirm.
Because Sanders did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule 11 hearing for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Sanders must show: (1)
there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error
affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013). In the guilty plea context, a
defendant meets his burden by showing a reasonable probability
2
that he would not have pled guilty but for the Rule 11 omission.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
After reviewing the transcript of Sanders’ guilty plea
hearing pursuant to Anders, we conclude that the district court
substantially complied with Rule 11 in accepting Sanders’ guilty
plea and that any omission by the court did not affect Sanders’
substantial rights. Critically, the district court ensured that
the plea was supported by an independent factual basis, that
Sanders entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that
Sanders understood the nature of the charges to which he pled
guilty, the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faced,
and the rights he relinquished by pleading guilty. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,
119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
We review Sanders’ sentence for reasonableness “under
a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally
reasonable if the court properly calculates the defendant’s
advisory Guidelines range, gives the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, considers the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, does not rely on clearly erroneous
facts, and sufficiently explains the selected sentence. Id. at
49-51. After reviewing the sentencing transcript pursuant to
Anders, we conclude that Sanders’ sentence is procedurally
3
reasonable. Sanders has also failed to rebut the presumption
that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.
2010) (explaining that this court applies a presumption on
appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines
range is substantively reasonable); United States v. Montes-
Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that
defendant may rebut presumption by showing “that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Sanders, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Sanders
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 Sanders. 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