UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4544
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DUJUAN VINCENT THOMAS, a/k/a Tone,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00093-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger D. Curry, CURRY AMOS & ASSOC., LC, Fairmont, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
DuJuan Vincent Thomas pleaded guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to aiding and abetting the distribution
of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C) (2006). He received a 151-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 Thomas’s guilty plea; and
(2) whether the sentence imposed by the district court is
reasonable. Thomas has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The
Government declined to file a response. We affirm.
Because Thomas 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 Thomas’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary,
we therefore find that Thomas’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 Thomas’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
2
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). Thomas received a sentence of 151
months-at the lowest end of the Guidelines range. We discern no
basis to conclude that Thomas’s Guidelines sentence was either
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Thomas’s supplemental brief argued that his attorney
was ineffective by stipulating in the plea agreement that Thomas
was a career offender and in failing to object to the
presentence report’s career offender designation. He also
contends that this failure rendered his plea involuntary.
Thomas had four felony drug trafficking convictions and clearly
qualified for the enhancement. The district court was very
careful to ensure that Thomas was satisfied with counsel and had
no comments or questions pertaining to the presentence report or
the sentencing procedures. No ineffective assistance of counsel
conclusively appears on the record. See United States v.
3
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). Finally, Thomas
contends that he should have been sentenced under the 2012
Guidelines Manual instead of the 2010 Manual. The 2010 Manual
was used instead of the 2011 edition because the 2011 edition
added two provisions that would likely have increased Thomas’s
Guidelines range. The 2012 manual was not available at the time
Thomas was sentenced, nor would it have been proper to use in
calculating Thomas’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Thomas’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Thomas, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Thomas 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 Thomas. 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