UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4883
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02341-RBH-1)
Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrone Davis pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), and
was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. He appealed. Davis’
counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Davis’ guilty
plea and whether the district court erred in sentencing Davis.
Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
Because Davis did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Rule 11 hearing are
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [a
litigant] must show that an error occurred, that the error was
plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.”
United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007).
Even if Davis satisfies these requirements, we retain discretion
to correct the error, which we should not exercise unless the
error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. A review of the record
establishes that the district court complied with Rule 11’s
2
requirements, ensuring that Davis’ plea was knowing and
voluntary, that he understood the rights he was giving up by
pleading guilty and the sentence he faced, and that he committed
the offense to which he was pleading guilty. Accordingly, we
affirm Davis’ conviction.
We review Davis’ sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard, assessing it for procedural and substantive
reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2008).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district
court properly calculated Davis’ Guidelines range and offered a
sufficiently reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed.
Thus, the sentence is procedurally reasonable. Further, Davis’
sentence to the statutory mandated minimum terms of imprisonment
is per se substantively reasonable. United States v. Farrior,
535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm
Davis’ sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Davis 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 his client. 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