US v. Antonio Singleton, No. 13-4383 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTONIO SINGLETON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00731-CMC-1) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kimberly H. Albro, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio 151-month Singleton sentence appeals pursuant entered from to his his conviction guilty possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. plea and to On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the sufficiency of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness of Singleton s sentence. Neither Singleton nor the Government has filed a brief. We affirm. Prior to accepting a plea, a trial court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the defendant comprehends, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Additionally, the district court must ensure that the defendant s plea was supported by an independent factual basis, was voluntary, and did not result from force, promises not contained in the plea agreement. 11(b)(2)-(3); DeFusco, 949 F.3d at 119-20. threats, or Fed. R. Crim. P. In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this [c]ourt should accord deference to the trial court s 2 decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant. DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116. Because Singleton did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, we review his plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, Singleton must show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States 2009). v. 564 to Whether Massenburg, an correct F.3d 337, 342-43 error lies in (4th this Cir. court s discretion, which we will exercise only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record indicates that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Singleton s plea. Accordingly, we conclude that the plea was knowing and voluntary and, consequently, final and binding. See United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, U.S. 552 district including court 38, committed improper insufficient 46 standard. (2007). no of first significant calculation consideration We the 3 of 18 Gall the v. ensure United that the procedural error, Guidelines range, U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, United and inadequate States v. (quoting Gall, explanation Lynn, 552 of the 575 592 572, at U.S. F.3d 51). If sentence we (4th find imposed. Cir. the 2010) sentence procedurally reasonable, we also must examine the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, considering the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and the defendant bears the burden to rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court properly calculated Singleton s Guidelines range based on his relevant conduct and criminal history, adequately explained the sentence in light of the § 3553(a) factors, and explicitly addressed Singleton s arguments for a lower sentence, we conclude that Singleton s sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case). Further, the sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, is also substantively 4 reasonable because Singleton provides no information on appeal to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Singleton s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Singleton in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Singleton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Singleton. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions the court are 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.
