UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN MCCORMICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-00080-TLW-2)
Submitted: February 17, 2012 Decided: March 8, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Thomas McBratney, III, MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, PA, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina;
Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen McCormick appeals his conviction and the 110-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to felon in
possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2) (2006). Counsel for McCormick filed a brief in
this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether the district court complied with the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, erred in enhancing
McCormick’s offense level by four levels, pursuant to U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2010), or
imposed an unreasonable sentence. Counsel states, however, that
he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. McCormick
received notice of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but did not file one. The Government declined to file a
brief. Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we
affirm.
Because McCormick did not move in the district court
to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for
plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [McCormick] must show
that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the
error affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Here, the record
confirms that the district court substantially complied with the
2
requirements of Rule 11. Accordingly, we conclude that
McCormick’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d
572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). We begin by reviewing the sentence
for significant procedural error, including such errors as
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] 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. If
there are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597
F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
We conclude that the sentence imposed by the district
court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court did not err in enhancing McCormick’s offense
level for possessing the firearms in connection with another
felony offense, as the Guidelines specify that the enhancement
applies to the circumstances of McCormick’s crime. USSG § 2K2.1
cmt. n.14(B). The district court correctly calculated the
3
Guidelines range and understood that it was advisory, considered
the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the sentence.
Thus, we conclude that the court imposed a reasonable sentence
under the circumstances.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 McCormick, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If McCormick 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 McCormick. 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