UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4631
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CORNELIUS MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a Buddy Love, a/k/a Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cr-00230-DKC-2)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen H. Orenberg, ORENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C., North Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Ray Daniel McKenzie, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Maurice Jackson appeals his conviction and
132-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine base. On appeal, counsel for Jackson filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
seeking review of the adequacy of the district court’s Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy and the reasonableness of Jackson’s
sentence. * Jackson did not file a supplemental pro se brief, and
the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders
brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through
colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and
determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which
the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
* Counsel also questions the validity of Jackson’s appellate
waiver contained in the plea agreement. The Government has not
sought to enforce the waiver in this case; accordingly, we
conduct a full review of the record as required by Anders. See
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007)
(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a
responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do
nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders
review.”).
2
1991). The district court also must ensure that the defendant’s
plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis,
and did not result from force, threats, or promises not
contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2),
(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. “In reviewing the adequacy of
compliance with Rule 11, [we] should accord deference to the
trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated
colloquy with the defendant.” DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116. In
addition, because Jackson did not move to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation
of Rule 11 error, we review the plea colloquy for plain error.
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). We
conclude that the district court correctly found Jackson’s plea
knowing and voluntary and that Jackson has not established plain
error in his Rule 11 hearing.
Turning to Jackson’s sentence, we review a sentence for
procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court
did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as
failing to properly calculate the applicable Sentencing
Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) sentencing factors, or failing to adequately explain the
sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable,
3
we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. We
presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive
sentencing error by the district court. The district court
correctly calculated Jackson’s offense level, criminal history,
and advisory Guidelines range. The court afforded the parties
an adequate opportunity to present arguments concerning the
appropriate sentence and provided Jackson an opportunity to
allocute. Finally, the court provided an adequate,
individualized explanation of the below-Guidelines sentence.
Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence
is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Jackson, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. We dispense with oral argument because
4
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5