US v. Allen Brown, No. 08-5096 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5096 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALLEN JOSHUA BROWN, a/k/a Antonio Frank Brown, a/k/a Milk, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-01117-SB-1) Submitted: May 29, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant Federal Public Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South for Appellee. Defender, Kittrell, Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Allen indictment Joshua charging Brown pled with: (1) him guilty to possession a with two-count intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)-(D) (2006) (Count One); and (2) carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006) (Count Two). He was sentenced to 85 months on Count One and a consecutive term of 60 months on Count Two, for a total sentence of 145 months. Brown s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, there are however, 386 no U.S. 738 (1967), meritorious counsel questions stating issues for (1) whether that, appeal. Brown s in In her her plea view, brief, complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and (2) whether the district court erred in sentencing Brown. claims. Brown has filed pro se supplemental Finding no error, we affirm. Because Brown did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the propriety of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences, and various other rights, so it is clear the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily entering his 2 plea. The court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). plea hearing transcript reveals that Our review of the the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, ensuring that Brown's plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was an independent factual basis for the plea. We review a criminal sentence using the abuse of discretion standard. for reasonableness, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007). that Brown s reasonable. Guidelines sentence is The district range, treated both procedurally court the properly Guidelines and We conclude substantively calculated as Brown s advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of correctness of within-guideline sentence). The court s sentence was based on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Having considered Brown s pro se claims, we find they entitle him to no relief. In accordance with Anders, we have also reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues 3 for appeal. We therefore affirm Brown s conviction and sentence. This writing, of court his requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Brown, Court of in the If Brown 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 Brown. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are 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.
