UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4370
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY KALVIN BRADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00364-JAB-7)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Kalvin Brady appeals the 98-month sentence imposed
upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846
(2012). On appeal, Brady’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 complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Brady’s guilty plea and whether the sentence is
reasonable. Brady has not filed a supplemental pro se brief
despite being advised of his right to do so. Finding no
meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
First, Brady generally questions whether the district court
erred in accepting his guilty plea. Because Brady did not move
to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise preserve a claim of
Rule 11 error, we review for plain error. United States v.
Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of the
plea hearing reveals that the district court substantially
complied with Rule 11 in conducting the plea colloquy, thus
ensuring that Brady’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported
by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b).
Brady next questions the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. We review a sentence’s
reasonableness for abuse of discretion. United States v.
2
Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). We first review
for procedural error, such as improper calculation of the
Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selection of a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, id. at 528, or failure to adequately
explain the sentence, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. Sentences within a properly calculated
Guidelines range are presumed reasonable, and this presumption
“can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014). We conclude that Brady’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable and that Brady has not overcome the presumption of
substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines-range
sentence.
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 district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Brady, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Brady requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
3
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Brady. 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