US v. Brent Gardner, No. 08-4108 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRENT GARDNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:05-cr-01156-MBS-1) Submitted: March 25, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth M. Mathews, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brent Gardner pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement * to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison. Gardner timely appealed. Counsel for Gardner filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly conducted Gardner s guilty plea hearing and denied a reduction in sentence for acceptance of responsibility. issues. Gardner filed a pro se brief raising two Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). United Our examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. * Gardner s plea was Gardner s plea agreement contained a waiver of appellate rights. However, because the Government does not invoke the waiver, we decline to enforce it. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) (where Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders review ). 2 knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore find no error, let alone plain error. Gardner next contends the district court erred when it refused to deduct three levels from his guidelines calculation for acceptance of responsibility Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2007). agreement, Gardner agreed to under U.S. Sentencing As a condition of his plea provide full, complete, truthful information about all unlawful activities. and However, Gardner failed to give the Government truthful information and failed a polygraph test concerning relevant conduct. In view of Gardner s untruthfulness, the district court did not err when it refused to reduce responsibility. his offense level for acceptance of See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. 1(a) ( In determining whether a defendant qualifies [for the reduction], appropriate considerations include . . . truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any . . . relevant conduct . . . . ). Finally, we have reviewed Gardner s pro se supplemental brief and find the issues raised therein to lack merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Gardner, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 3 review. If Gardner 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 Gardner. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
