US v. Nanci Byrd, No. 15-4777 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NANCI BROOK BYRD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00053-CCE-13) Submitted: September 20, 2016 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 28, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nanci Brook Byrd pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The imprisonment. district court sentenced Byrd to 40 months’ In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Byrd’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are questioning no meritorious the adequacy grounds of the reasonableness of the sentence. for appeal plea but hearing generally and the Although notified of her right to do so, Byrd has failed to file a pro se brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment. Because Byrd did not move to withdraw her guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines she understands, the rights she is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charge to which she is pleading, and the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties she faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and 2 “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Our review of the record confirms that the district court fully complied with Rule 11. We review a defendant’s abuse-of-discretion standard.” 38, 41 (2007). sentence “under a deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an § 3553(a) appropriate (2012) selected sentence. “significant sentence, factors, and Id. at 49-51. procedural error,” considered sufficiently the 18 U.S.C. explained the If a sentence is free of then we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Byrd’s sentence is procedurally sound. While Byrd requested a probationary sentence, her arguments in support of that request fail to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded her 3 40-month sentence. We therefore conclude that her sentence is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Byrd, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Byrd requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Byrd. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
