US v. James Dean, No. 10-4535 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4535 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES L. DEAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cr-00893-HFF-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James L. Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. sentenced him to eighty-seven months The district court imprisonment. Dean s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Dean s sentence was reasonable. Dean was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See 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 fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Dean s guilty plea. The court ensured that Dean understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and supported by an independent factual basis. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 that the plea was See United States v. (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Dean s conviction. We have also reviewed Dean s sentence and determined that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed 2 was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Dean, appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This writing, United of court the States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If inform Supreme Dean Dean, Court requests of in the 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 Dean. 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 3
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.
