UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4569
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LEWIS WIMBERLY,
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-00738-RBH-1)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. John C. Potterfield,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lewis Wimberly pled guilty to conspiracy to
commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343
(2012). He received a sixty-month sentence. On appeal, counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Wimberly’s guilty plea and whether
the sentence was reasonable. Although informed of his right to
do so, Wimberly has not filed a supplemental brief. The
Government declined to file a response. We affirm.
Because Wimberly did not move to withdraw his plea, we
review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no
error, as the district court substantially complied with Rule 11
when accepting Wimberly’s plea. Given no indication to the
contrary, we therefore find that the plea was knowing and
voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. See United
States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
Next, counsel questions whether the sentence was
reasonable, considering that a thirty-month portion of
Wimberly’s sentence was imposed consecutive to an undischarged
state sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
2
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). The court first reviews for
significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from
such error, it then considers substantive reasonableness. Id.
at 51. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
failing to adequately explain the selected sentence. Id. To
adequately explain the sentence, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment” by applying the relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the case’s specific circumstances. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). The individualized
assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must be
adequate to allow meaningful appellate review. Id. at 330.
Substantive reasonableness is determined by considering the
totality of the circumstances, and if the sentence is within the
properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). We conclude that Wimberly has
not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Wimberly’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Wimberly, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If Wimberly 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 Wimberly. 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