UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4905
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENTWAN RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00679-CCB-1)
Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: May 22, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary E. Proctor, LAW OFFICES OF GARY E. PROCTOR, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kentwan Russell appeals his conviction and 180-month
armed career criminal sentence imposed by the district court
after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On
appeal, Russell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether
Russell’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right
to do so, Russell has not filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
Because Russell 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); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,
1126-27 (2013) (discussing standard of review). Although the
district court neglected to inform Russell of certain trial
rights, we conclude that the court’s minor omissions did not
affect his substantial rights. See United States v. Massenburg,
564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the district court
ensured that Russell’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that a
factual basis supported the plea.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
2
38, 51 (2007). In so doing, we examine the sentence for
significant procedural error.” See id. If there is none, we
“consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence . . .,
tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
Upon a thorough review of the sentencing proceedings, we
conclude that Russell’s sentence is procedurally reasonable and
that Russell failed to rebut the presumption of substantive
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. See
United States v. Montes-Peneda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.
2006) (explaining presumption of reasonableness).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 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 Russell, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Russell 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 Russell. 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
3