US v. Graham Sipe, No. 08-4829 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 22, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4829 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GRAHAM PAGE SIPE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-JAB-2) Submitted: March 31, 2010 Decided: April 19, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Darren Byers, LAW OFFICE OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Graham agreement § 2113 to armed (2006), prison. Page Sipe pled guilty bank and robbery, was sentenced in pursuant violation to to of sixty-three a 21 plea U.S.C. months in Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that after a review of the record, Counsel he has found nonetheless reasonable. no meritorious questions whether issues Sipe s for appeal. sentence is Sipe has not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite receiving notice that he may do so, and the Government declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we review the adequacy of a guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. United 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). States v. Martinez, A review of Sipe s Rule 11 hearing reveals that the district court complied with Rule 11 s requirements. intelligently Sipe s made, plea with was full attendant to his guilty plea. knowingly, knowledge of voluntarily, the and consequences We therefore find that no plain error occurred and affirm Sipe s conviction. We also find no error, plain or otherwise, with regard to Sipe s sentence and therefore affirm that sentence. presentence investigation report 2 properly placed him Sipe s in a category offense I criminal level sixty-three district of departure and attributed twenty-six, yielding seventy-eight to court history months. considered based on a him with Guidelines At total range sentencing, counsel s motion alleged diminished Sipe s a for a of the downward capacity, but reasonably concluded that the circumstances of Sipe s offense rendered him ineligible for a downward departure. The district court offered Sipe an opportunity to allocute and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors before imposing Sipe s sentence. We find that the district court appropriately treated the Guidelines as advisory, adequately explained its rationale for imposing Sipe s sentence, and that the reasons relied upon by the district court were individualized, justified the sentence imposed. plausible, and See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment . . . must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to permit meaningful evidence to rebut appellate the review ). presumption within-Guidelines sentence. this Moreover, court we accords find no Sipe s See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). 3 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 Sipe, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sipe requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and materials legal before for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sipe. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.
