UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4305
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DONALD J. PRESCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00588-MBS-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Winston David Holliday, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald J. Prescott appeals his conviction and fifty-
seven month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
attempted possession with intent to distribute OxyContin.
Counsel for Prescott has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967) brief, certifying that there are no non-frivolous
issues for appeal, but questioning whether Prescott’s guilty
plea was valid and whether the district court provided
individualized reasoning for the sentence imposed. Prescott was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Because Prescott did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court, the colloquy is reviewed for plain
error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th
Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, a
district court must address the defendant in open court and
ensure he understands, among other things, the nature of the
charge against him, the possible punishment he faces, and the
rights he relinquishes by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1). The court must also ensure that a sufficient factual
basis exists to support the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), and
that the plea is knowing and voluntary, Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(2). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no
deficiencies in the colloquy conducted by the district court.
2
We thus conclude that the district court did not err in finding
Prescott’s guilty plea to be valid.
Counsel next challenges the adequacy of the
explanation for Prescott’s sentence. Because Prescott preserved
his challenge to the sentence by arguing for a below-Guidelines
sentence, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 583-84 (4th Cir. 2010). If the
district court procedurally erred and thus abused its
discretion, we must reverse unless the error is harmless. Id.
at 585. “[A]n individualized explanation must accompany every
sentence.” Id. at 576.
Here, the district court imposed a sentence at the low
end of the properly calculated Guidelines range. The district
court explicitly stated that it considered the Guidelines, as
well as the statutory sentencing factors. The court also
adopted the undisputed facts in the presentence report and
stated that it took into consideration the nature,
circumstances, and seriousness of the offense, as well as
Prescott’s history and characteristics and the necessity for
deterrence, treatment, and counseling. Accordingly, we conclude
that the district court properly based its sentence on an
individualized assessment of the facts of the case.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This
court requires that counsel inform Prescott, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Prescott 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 Prescott. 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