UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN JEROME WISE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00791-CMC-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Ervin, THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. ERVIN, III, Darlington,
South Carolina, for Appellee. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Jerome Wise pled guilty without a plea agreement
to possession of firearms by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2006), receiving and possessing
a firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3), (a)(4) (2006), possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base and methamphetamine and
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006), and use and
carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) . He received a 240-month
sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Wise’s guilty plea; and (2) whether
the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable.
Although informed of his right to do so, Wise has not filed a
supplemental brief. The Government declined to file a response.
Because Wise did not move to withdraw his plea, we
review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no
error, as the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when
accepting Wise’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary, we
therefore find that Wise’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and,
2
consequently, final and binding. See United States v. Lambey,
974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
Next we review Wise’s sentence for reasonableness
using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 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 improperly
calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to
consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, sentencing using
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if we find a sentence
procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude that Wise’s
within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell, 650
F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence
within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Wise’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Wise, in writing, of the right to
3
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Wise 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 Wise. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4