US v. Richard Pinckney, No. 09-4892 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4892 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD LEON PINCKNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00145-PMD-1) Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cameron J. Blazer, 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 Defender, Kittrell, Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Richard Pinckney appeals from his conviction and 226-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006). Pinckney 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 Pinckney s guilty plea, and whether Pinckney s sentence is reasonable. Pinckney was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm. During Pinckney s plea hearing, in compliance with Rule 11, the district court properly informed Pinckney of the nature of the charges and penalties he faced and the rights he was forfeiting with his guilty plea, found that Pinckney was competent and entering his plea voluntarily, and there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. the record establishes Pinckney knowingly and determined Therefore, voluntarily entered into his guilty plea with a full understanding of the consequences and there was no error in the district court s acceptance of his plea. Pinckney reasonable. also questions whether his sentence is This court reviews a sentence for procedural and 2 substantive standard. reasonablenes, applying an abuse of discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we must assess whether the district court properly calculated the guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. See also United States v. Lynn, 592 Id. F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). substantive totality of reasonableness the of circumstances the to Finally, we review the sentence, see examin[ing] whether the the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Pinckney, appropriately treating the guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable guidelines range, applying the § 3553(a) factors to the facts of the case, explanation of the sentence. and offering an individualized Moreover, the court granted the Government s motion for downward departure based on Pinckney s substantial assistance and sentenced applicable advisory guidelines range. 3 Pinckney below the Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. 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 her 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.
