UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE MARQUIS BRADLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00088-TLW-1)
Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: October 12, 2011
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Marquis Bradley pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was
sentenced to 170 months in prison. Bradley now appeals. His
attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal. Bradley was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such
a brief. We affirm.
Bradley first contends that the district court failed
to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Because Bradley did not
move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we
review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). After
thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we
discern no plain error.
Bradley also contends that his sentence is
unreasonable. At sentencing, the district court determined that
Bradley’s total offense level was 34, he was in criminal history
category VI, and his resulting advisory Guidelines range was
262-327 months. The court granted the United States’ motion for
downward departure based on substantial assistance and departed
downward four levels. This reduced Bradley’s Guidelines range
2
to 168-210 months. After hearing argument from counsel and
Bradley’s allocution, the court sentenced Bradley to 170 months
in prison. In imposing the sentence, the court considered
relevant 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors,
Bradley’s substantial assistance to the United States, and the
fact that Bradley had never served a significant term of
imprisonment despite having several felony convictions.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2008). The first step in this review requires us to
ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161
(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In explaining the selected sentence, the district
court “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented,” by applying “the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the
specific circumstances of the case before it.” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
3
marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also “state in open
court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and
“set forth enough to satisfy” us that it has “considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). “If, and only if, we find the sentence
procedurally reasonable can we consider” its substantive
reasonableness. Id.
We conclude that Bradley’s sentence is procedurally
and substantively reasonable. The court properly calculated the
Guidelines range, applied pertinent § 3553(a) factors,
considered the arguments of counsel and Bradley’s allocution,
and sufficiently explained the variant sentence. See Evans, 526
F.3d at 161.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that
counsel inform Bradley, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Bradley 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 of the motion was served
on Bradley.
4
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
5