UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN CHAMBERS, a/k/a BK, a/k/a Kaos,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00331-WDQ-1)
Submitted: December 7, 2012 Decided: January 8, 2013
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ron Earnest, LAW OFFICE OF RON EARNEST, Takoma Park, Maryland,
for Appellant. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Chambers pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The
district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment.
Chambers now appeals. In accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Chambers’ attorney has filed a brief
certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the substantive reasonableness of Chambers’ sentence
and the knowing and voluntary nature of Chambers’ appeal waiver.
Chambers received notice of his right to file a supplemental pro
se brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
We initially conclude that we need not consider
whether Chambers knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to
appeal. The Government has not sought enforcement of the waiver
and this court declines to enforce appellate waiver provisions
sua sponte. See generally United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
168 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the validity of Chambers’
waiver of his appellate is simply not pertinent to this appeal.
We review Chambers’ sentence for reasonableness,
applying a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). We begin by reviewing
the sentence for significant procedural error, including
improper calculation of the Guidelines range, failure to
2
consider sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006),
sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, or failure to
adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. If we find
a sentence procedurally reasonable, we then consider its
substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Our examination of the record of
Chambers’ sentencing reveals no procedural infirmity. Further,
we presume Chambers’ within-Guidelines sentence to be
substantively reasonable. United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d
388, 395 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
Chambers has failed to rebut this presumption and we have not
independently perceived any substantive error in its imposition.
Accordingly, we reject Chambers’ challenge to his sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Therefore, we affirm Chambers’ conviction and sentence. This
court requires counsel to inform Chambers, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Chambers requests that a petition be filed
but counsel believes such petition would be frivolous, counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Chambers. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4