UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4911
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRACY LAVENDER WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00448-CCE-8)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracy Lavender Wilson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2006) and received a 100-month sentence. Counsel
for Wilson filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the
factual basis supported the plea and whether the district court
properly found that Wilson qualified as a career offender and
fashioned a reasonable sentence. The Government elected not to
file a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), the district court
must satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the
defendant’s guilty plea prior to entering judgment on the plea.
“The rule is intended to ensure that the court make[s] clear
exactly what a defendant admits to, and whether those admissions
are factually sufficient to constitute the alleged
crime.” United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 366 (4th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ordinarily, this
court would review the district court’s finding that a
sufficient basis in fact supports a guilty plea for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 367. However, because Wilson did not
challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district
court, this court reviews counsel’s challenge for plain error
2
only. United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 656-57 (4th Cir.
2007). The record does not demonstrate plain error by the
district court in accepting the plea based on the factual basis
presented by the Government.
A review of the record reveals no error in sentencing.
When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and
consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Appellate review of a
district court’s imposition of a sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 41. The district court followed
the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Wilson,
appropriately treating the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory,
properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines
range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. We further
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the chosen sentence.
Wilson filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating
the issues raised by counsel. 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
3
Wilson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Wilson 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 Wilson.
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