UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4407
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO LENARD BUEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00062-NCT-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Lenard Buey pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base, 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Buey was sentenced to 190 months for
the drug offense and sixty months, consecutive, for the firearm
offense. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Buey
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 proceeding discloses that the district court fully complied
with the Rule. The record supports the district court’s finding
that Buey entered a knowing and voluntary plea and that there
was a factual basis for the plea.
Further, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court correctly calculated
Buey’s Guidelines range, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained the
variance sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575
(4th Cir. 2010). With respect to the court’s explanation of the
2
sentence, the court stated that it would vary below the
Guidelines range of 262-327 months for several reasons,
including Buey’s early cooperation with the United States, the
statements at sentencing by Buey and his mother, and Buey’s
documented, exemplary performance of his prison job. The
sentence accordingly is free of procedural error. Our review of
the record convinces us, based on the totality of the
circumstances, that the sentence is similarly free of
substantive error. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing the selected sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Buey’s convictions and sentence.
This Court requires that counsel inform Buey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Buey 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 of the
motion was served on Buey.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4