US v. Kareem Abdul Slade, No. 07-4743 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4743 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM ABDUL SLADE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:06-cr-01288-PMD) Submitted: June 30, 2009 Decided: July 15, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John Charles Duane, Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kareem 188-month Abdul sentence possession with Slade following intent to appeals a from guilty distribute his plea five conviction to one grams or and count of more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). Slade s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Slade s guilty plea, and whether Slade s sentence is reasonable. Slade was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm.* During Slade s plea hearing, in compliance with Rule 11, the district court properly informed Slade of the rights he was forfeiting as a result of his plea and the nature of the charges and penalties he faced, found that Slade was competent and entering his plea voluntarily, and determined there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. establishes Slade knowingly and Therefore, the record voluntarily entered into his guilty plea with a full understanding of the consequences and * This case was placed in abeyance for United States v. Antonio, 311 F. App x 679 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 07-4791). We conclude that our decision in Antonio does not affect the outcome of Slade s appeal 2 there was no error in the district court s acceptance of his plea. Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Slade. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). 586, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 596 (2007). imposition of a Appellate sentence, review whether of a inside, district just court s outside, or significantly outside the [g]uidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Slade, appropriately treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court found that a sentence of 188-months imprisonment was appropriate, specifically highlighting Slade s educational, criminal, employment, and familial background, as well as his conduct and culpability. Furthermore, Slade s sentence, which is the bottom of the applicable guidelines range 3 and below the statutory maximum of forty years in prison, is presumed reasonable on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Slade. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore requires affirm that the district counsel inform court s his judgment. client, in This writing, We court of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
