UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4650
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ALAN SCARBOROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00043-JAB-1)
Submitted: March 7, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce A. Lee, BRUCE A. LEE, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Alan Scarborough pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of possession of firearms by a felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). He was
sentenced to a 180-month term of imprisonment. Scarborough’s
counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Scarborough was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Because Scarborough did not move the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is 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). A review of the
record reveals no error, plain or otherwise. Rather, the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11’s requirements,
ensuring that Scarborough’s 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
Scarborough’s conviction.
2
We review Scarborough’s 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 Scarborough’s Guidelines range and
offered a sufficiently reasoned explanation for the sentence
imposed. Scarborough’s sentence to the statutory mandated
minimum term of imprisonment is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm Scarborough’s 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 Scarborough, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Scarborough 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 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
3