US v. Craig Tadlock, No. 09-4636 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4636 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG TADLOCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00176-TLW-4) Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Craig Tadlock pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute OxyCodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was sentenced to forty-one months in prison. Tadlock now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Tadlock was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Tadlock knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and that there was a factual basis for the plea. the plea colloquy discloses Further, the transcript of that the district substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. court Although the district court did not advise Tadlock of the court s obligation to impose a special assessment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(L), Tadlock s plea agreement made clear that Tadlock was subject to such an assessment. Tadlock acknowledged at the Rule 11 hearing that he had read and understood the entire plea agreement. district Under court s these circumstances, omission did not we conclude constitute affecting Tadlock s substantial rights. that plain the error See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating standard of 2 review). The district court otherwise complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Tadlock s total offense level was 23, his criminal history category was II, and his advisory Guidelines range was 51-63 months. Tadlock, the At sentencing, after hearing from counsel and court recognized this range and factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). considered the The court took note of Tadlock s past criminal conduct and his persistence in involving himself in announced that would it drug activity. impose a However, variant sentence the court based on Tadlock s having cooperated with the Government by participating in controlled drug buys and on Tadlock s ill health. The court determined that a two-level reduction in his offense level, and a resulting Guidelines range of 41-51 months, was appropriate. The court sentenced him to forty-one months in prison. We conclude that substantively reasonable. 38, 51 (2007). Tadlock s the sentence is procedurally and See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. In this regard, the court properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the variant sentence. See id.; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). After reviewing the entire record in accordance with Anders, we find that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore affirm Tadlock s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on her client. 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 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.
