CORRECTED OPINION
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN TOWNSEND, a/k/a Kojack,
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-00417-TLW-12)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Corrected Opinion Filed: January 31, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth V. Tilley, THE LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH VAUGHN TILLEY,
PC, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William
Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Townsend pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and
twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). He received a 210-
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 Townsend’s guilty plea; and (2)
whether the sentence imposed by the district court is
reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Townsend
has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government declined to
file a response. We affirm.
Because Townsend 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 Townsend’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary,
we therefore find that Townsend’s plea was knowing and
voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. See United
States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
Next we review Townsend’s sentence for reasonableness
using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
2
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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) 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 Townsend’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 Townsend’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Townsend, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Townsend 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
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Townsend. 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