UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY KY-YON GRAY, a/k/a Pondie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-3)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Andrew Jennings, Hickory, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Gary Ky-yon Gray
pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute cocaine base. The district court sentenced him to
262 months of imprisonment, the bottom of his correctly-
calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Gray’s counsel
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Gray’s
sentence was reasonable in light of his request for a variance
or a downward departure. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
In fulfilling our duty under Anders, we have reviewed
the guilty plea for any error, and find none. The district
court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
Gray’s guilty plea. The court ensured that Gray understood the
charge against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he
entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea
was supported by an independent factual basis. United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119–20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm Gray’s conviction.
We have reviewed Gray’s sentence and determine that it
was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed is
reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
2
United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The
district court followed the necessary procedural steps in
sentencing Gray, appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines
as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable
Guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006) factors in light of Gray’s individual characteristics and
circumstances. The district court adequately explained its
reasons for denying a variance, noting that Gray was a career
offender and expressing dismay that he had gone back to selling
drugs shortly after being released from federal prison for the
same offense. We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.
2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to
within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case, including the issues raised in Gray’s pro
se supplemental brief, and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Gray, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Gray 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
3
state that a copy thereof was served on Gray. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4