UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN LEWIS CHAMBERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (5:17-cr-00020-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: September 5, 2018
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Ann L. Hester, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Lewis Chambers appeals his conviction and 84-month sentence after
pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2012). Chambers’ 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 district court erred by increasing Chambers’ base offense level
based on a finding that Chambers had two prior felony convictions for crimes of
violence. Chambers has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief, but he has not
filed one. We affirm.
Chambers did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, and thus
we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate
“that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial
rights. Even if an appellant satisfies these elements, we may exercise our discretion to
correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012)
(citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we detect no
reversible error in the magistrate judge’s Rule 11 plea colloquy, we affirm Chambers’
conviction.
We review Chambers’ sentence for both procedural and substantive
reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed no significant
2
procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [Sentencing]
Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). 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.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within a properly
calculated Guidelines range is reasonable, and 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.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error in the district court’s
imposition of Chambers’ sentence. Counsel’s specific claim, that Chambers’ prior North
Carolina convictions for common law robbery do not constitute crimes of violence, is
foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Gattis, 877 F.3d 150, 156-60 (4th
Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1572 (2018). The district court properly calculated
the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and sufficiently explained its reasons for
imposing the sentence Chambers received. Further, Chambers has not made the showing
necessary to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we afford his within-
Guidelines 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 Chambers, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Chambers requests
3
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 Chambers.
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