UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LATEEF AKANDE, a/k/a Vincent Tyrone Jackson, a/k/a Tyrone
Jackson, a/k/a Alexander Lamar Norris, a/k/a Samuel Dejuan
Jackson, a/k/a Brian Tafft, a/k/a Brian Tefft, a/k/a Jon
Agne, a/k/a Antwan Morgan, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00288-RWT-1)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 12, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth E. McPherson, KENNETH E. MCPHERSON, CHTD, Riverdale,
Maryland, Gregory W. Gardner, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY W. GARDNER,
PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, David Ira Salem,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Patrick Windom, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lateef Akande appeals his conviction and 175-month sentence
after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012); bank fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2012); aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (2012); and money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (2012). Akande’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal
but questioning whether the indictment was sufficient, whether
Akande’s guilty plea was valid, whether a proper factual basis
existed for the plea, and whether Akande’s sentence was
reasonable. * Akande has been notified of his right to file a pro
se brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm.
We detect no flaws in Akande’s indictment. We also
conclude that no reversible error occurred during Akande’s Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, and that the district court had an ample
factual basis from which to accept Akande’s guilty plea.
Turning to Akande’s sentence, we review for both procedural
and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-
*Although Akande waived his right to appeal in his plea
agreement, the Government has not moved to enforce that waiver.
See United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000)
(this court will not enforce waiver provision in plea agreement
sua sponte)
3
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). We must ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant
procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.”
Id. We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated
Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
A defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the
sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors.” Id.
After reviewing the presentence report and sentencing
transcript, we conclude that Akande’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court
properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, discussed the
applicable § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing the sentence Akande received. In addition,
Akande has not made the showing necessary to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
4
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw at this juncture is denied. This
court requires that counsel inform Akande, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Akande requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Akande.
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
5