US v. Steve Singletary, No. 10-4718 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4718 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVE M. SINGLETARY, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-01314-JFA-1) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, II, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steve M. Singletary appeals the fifty-seven month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel for Singletary filed a brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, valid but and sentence. questioning whether the whether district Singletary s court guilty imposed a plea was reasonable Singletary was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Because Singletary did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or raise any objections to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, the colloquy is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a defendant s guilty plea, a district court must address the defendant in open court and ensure he understands, among other things, the nature of the charge against him, the possible punishment he faces, and the rights he relinquishes by pleading guilty. 11(b)(1). Fed. R. Crim. P. The court must also ensure that a sufficient factual basis exists to support the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), and that the plea is knowing and 2 voluntary, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no deficiencies in the colloquy conducted by the district court. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding Singletary s guilty plea to be valid. Counsel next challenges the reasonableness of Singletary s sentence, but does not specify any deficiencies. We review a sentence discretion standard. (2007). the reasonableness under an abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 This review requires appellate consideration of both procedural Id. for and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. This court must assess whether the district court properly calculated the 18 U.S.C. § presented by advisory 3553(a) the Guidelines (2006) parties, factors, and range, considered analyzed sufficiently any the arguments explained the United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 selected sentence. (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). court presumes on appeal that a Guidelines sentence range In addition, this within is a properly determined advisory substantively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that Singletary s procedurally and substantively reasonable. 3 sentence is both The district court properly calculated Singletary s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Singletary has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform Singletary, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Singletary 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 was served on Singletary. 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.
