US v. Burnett Shackleford, No. 07-4884 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4884 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BURNETT TRIONE SHACKLEFORD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00206-TLW-1) Submitted: May 29, 2009 Decided: June 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Burnett Trione Shackleford pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Shackleford to 264 months imprisonment. On appeal, v. counsel has California, 386 U.S. meritorious issues filed 738 for a brief (1967), appeal, pursuant stating but to that questioning Anders there are whether no the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Shackleford s reasonable. issues. guilty plea and whether its sentence is Shackleford filed a pro se brief raising several We affirm. Because Shackleford did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Shackleford s guilty plea and that the court s omissions did not affect Shackleford s substantial rights. Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual 2 basis and that voluntarily Shackleford with an entered understanding the of plea the knowingly consequences. and See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Further, Shackleford does not suggest that he would have declined to plead guilty had colloquy been more exacting. the district court s Rule 11 Accordingly, we discern no plain error. We review Shackleford s sentence under a deferential Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. abuse of discretion standard. 586, 597 (2007). ensure that The first step in this review requires us to the district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. then sentence consider the substantive reasonableness of the We imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. When reviewing a sentence on appeal, we presume that a sentence within reasonable. a properly calculated Guidelines range is Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 341 (2007); United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and gave the parties an opportunity to 3 argue for district whatever court considered sentence also the they heard relevant deemed allocution § 3553(a) appropriate. from factors, The Shackleford, and sentenced Shackleford within his advisory Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. that the district Under these circumstances, we conclude court sentencing Shackleford. did not abuse its discretion in Finally, after review of Shackleford s pro se supplemental brief, we conclude it raises no meritorious issues for appeal. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance meritorious with the issues requirements for appeal. * district court s judgment. of Anders, Accordingly, and we we find affirm no the This court requires that counsel inform Shackleford, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court Shackleford of the requests United that a States for petition be further filed, review. but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Shackleford. We dispense with * oral argument because the This case was held in abeyance for United States v. Antonio, 311 F. App x 679 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). This court s decision in Antonio supports our analysis of Shackleford s case. 4 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
