US v. Kevin Guntharp, No. 10-4595 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4595 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEVIN GUNTHARP, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00149-NCT-1) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Guntharp pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced him to 48 months imprisonment. On appeal, Guntharp s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and whether the district discretion by imposing Guntharp s sentence. court abused its Guntharp filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating counsel s arguments and asserting that he should receive credit toward his sentence for time spent on home confinement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Guntharp s guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, Cir. 116, 119-20 (4th 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Guntharp s conviction. We have reviewed Guntharp s sentence and conclude that it was properly calculated and 2 is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). the necessary appropriately properly range, treated calculated and factors procedural weighed in individual relation the The district court followed steps in sentencing and considered the relevant to 18 Guntharp s circumstances. The sentencing guidelines the as applicable U.S.C. § criminal district Guntharp, advisory, guidelines 3553(a) conduct court (2006) and his specifically considered the testimony of the expert witnesses that Guntharp could be treated in the community, but questioned Guntharp s motivation to pursue treatment and found that Guntharp had not pursued the treatment plan he initially proposed. The court also from emphasized the need to protect the public such offenses and determined that a term of imprisonment was needed. However, the court did impose a variance sentence of 48 months, down from the 78 to 97 month advisory guidelines range. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the downward variance sentence of 48 months. 552 U.S. (4th Cir.) at 41; United (holding that States due v. Engle, 592 deference is F.3d given See Gall, 495, 500 to the district court s decision to impose variance sentence), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 165 (2010). Guntharp, in his pro se brief, argues that the court failed to credit the testimony of the expert witnesses as to the 3 propriety of community treatment for Guntharp and he argues that he should receive credit toward his sentence for time spent on home confinement. the testimony As addressed above, the court did consider as to the possibility obtain community treatment. of allowing Guntharp to In reliance on this testimony, the district court allowed Guntharp to remain on home confinement for an extended time prior to service of his sentence. upon consideration reasoned that Guntharp s spent on of a term offense. house all the of incarceration Contrary arrest with sentencing to factors, was Guntharp s electronic However, the warranted claim, monitoring court for his time does not constitute time served in official detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2006). See Randall v. Whelan, 938 F.2d 522, 524 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Insley, 927 F.2d 185, 186 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, no credit for this time is warranted. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Guntharp s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Guntharp, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Guntharp requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof 4 was served on Guntharp. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court 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.
