US v. Brandon McDaniel, No. 08-4322 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON DEVAUL MCDANIEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cr-00945-GRA-3) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathy Price Elmore, ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Walter Wilkins, III, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Devaul McDaniel pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess and transfer with intent to use unlawfully five or more identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(3), 1028(f) (2006) conspiracy possess without to identification of another § 1028A(a)(1) (2006) (Count lawful person, (Count Two), in and one authority violation Three). The count of a means of of 18 U.S.C. district court sentenced him to a total of thirty-eight months of imprisonment, and McDaniel timely appealed. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, in which she states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting McDaniel s guilty plea, and whether the sentence is reasonable. McDaniel was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. declined to file a brief. McDaniel withdraw his challenge to error. guilty the We affirm. not plea; adequacy move in therefore of the the district this court Rule 11 court reviews hearing for to his plain See United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453, 461-62 (4th Cir. 2006). 1 did The Government Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 must ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences, and other various rights, so it is clear that the knowingly and voluntarily entering his plea. defendant is The court must also determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1), (3); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Counsel does not specify any deficiencies in the district court s Rule 11 inquiry, and our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that the court conducted a colloquy that substantially complied with Rule 11 and assured McDaniel s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily. We review a sentence imposed by the district court for procedural and substantive discretion standard. (2007). reasonableness under an abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 The court considers the totality of the circumstances in assessing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court presumes that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines 2 range is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). 2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2006). 3 presumption of In considering the district court s application of the Guidelines, this court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522, 527 (4th Cir. 2006). The district court correctly calculated McDaniel s Guidelines range as to Count Two, and imposed a sentence within that range and within the statutory maximum. properly imposed the statutorily required consecutive sentence on Count Three. The court also twenty-four month 28 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that McDaniel s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McDaniel s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McDaniel, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McDaniel 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 McDaniel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.