UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4148
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC EZEKIAL HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Carl Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00328-NCT-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY, PC, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Ezekial Hutchinson appeals his conviction and 43-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, counsel for Hutchinson
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal but addressing the validity of Hutchinson’s plea and
sentence. Hutchinson did not file a supplemental pro se brief,
and the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders
brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through
colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and
determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which
the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
1991). The district court also must ensure that the defendant’s
plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis,
and did not result from force, threats, or promises not
contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2),
(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. We conclude that the district
court correctly found Hutchinson’s plea knowing and voluntary
and that Hutchinson has not established plain error in his Rule
11 hearing.
2
Turning to Hutchinson’s sentence, we review a sentence for
procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court did
not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing
to properly calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines
range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
sentencing factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable,
we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. We
presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, as here, is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive
sentencing error by the district court. Without objection, the
district court correctly calculated Hutchinson’s offense level,
criminal history, and advisory Guidelines range. The court
afforded the parties an adequate opportunity to present
arguments concerning the appropriate sentence and provided
Hutchinson an opportunity to allocute. Finally, the court
provided an adequate, individualized explanation for the
within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
3
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Hutchinson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Hutchinson 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 Hutchinson. 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