UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4867
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACY CLARENCE ANDERSON,
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-00219-FDW-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reggie E. McKnight, MCKNIGHT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tracy Anderson appeals his 180-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of bank robbery by force
and violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2012). On
appeal, Anderson’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 erred in applying a career offender enhancement.
Anderson has not filed a supplemental pro se brief despite being
advised of his right to do so and despite being granted two
extensions of time to file. Finding no meritorious grounds for
appeal, we affirm.
On appeal, counsel questions whether the district court
improperly designated Anderson a career offender based, in part,
on Anderson’s North Carolina conviction of larceny from the
person. Anderson raised this objection before the district
court, but unequivocally withdrew the objection at sentencing.
“[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a
known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A party who identifies an
issue, and then explicitly withdraws it, has waived the issue,”
and the waived issue “is not reviewable on appeal, even for
plain error.” United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th
Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S.
2
Ct. 225 (2014). Thus, we conclude that, because Anderson
withdrew his objection to the career offender enhancement on the
basis of his conviction of larceny from the person, he has
waived appellate review of this issue.
Because Anderson did not move to withdraw his guilty plea
in the district court, we review the validity of his plea for
plain error. United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416,
422 (4th Cir. 2015). The record reveals that the district court
substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
Anderson’s plea, which was knowing and voluntary.
Finally, in fulfilling our duty under Anders, we have
reviewed the sentence and conclude that it is procedurally and
substantively reasonable. The sentence is procedurally
reasonable inasmuch as the district court properly calculated
the applicable guidelines range and appropriately explained the
sentence in the context of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Further, the within-Guidelines sentence is
presumptively substantively reasonable, United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
421 (2014), and we discern no basis to rebut that presumption.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
3
This court requires that counsel inform Anderson, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Anderson 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 Anderson. 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