UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4051
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDRE VALENTINO PIERRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00334-FDW-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ross Hall Richardson, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Valentino Pierre pled guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) (2012), and was sentenced to 151 months in prison. He
now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Pierre
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
proceeding discloses that the district court fully complied with
the Rule. Pierre admitted his guilt and acknowledged that the
Factual Basis offered in support of the plea was correct. Finally,
the record establishes that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily
entered.
Pierre’s correctly calculated Guidelines range was 151-188
months. At sentencing, counsel asked for a sentence below this
range. As counsel acknowledges in the Anders brief, the sentencing
transcript refutes Pierre’s present claim that the district court
did not address counsel’s arguments in favor of a downward
variance. Although the court specifically rejected the request
for a variance, the court found that a sentence at the low end of
Pierre’s Guidelines range was appropriate. We accord a presumption
of reasonableness to Pierre’s within-Guidelines sentence, see
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008), and
2
find that Pierre failed to rebut this presumption. See United
States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We
therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Pierre,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Pierre 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 of the motion was served on Pierre. 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
3