US v. John Singleton, No. 10-4961 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4961 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHN SINGLETON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00914-PMD-2) Submitted: June 16, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 20, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter S. Ameika, Jr., AMEIKA LAW OFFICES, Summerville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Singleton pled guilty to conspiracy to embezzle money from a federally-funded organization. The district court sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Singleton s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), meritorious stating that, issues for in counsel s appeal, view, but there questioning are no whether Singleton s sentence was reasonable in light of his request for a variance or a downward departure. Singleton was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. We affirm. In fulfilling our duty under Anders, we have reviewed the guilty plea for any error, and find none. Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district accepting court fully complied Singleton s guilty with plea. Fed. The R. Crim. court P. 11 ensured in that Singleton understood the charge against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was supported by an independent factual basis. 119-20 (4th See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm Singleton s conviction. We have reviewed Singleton s sentence and determined that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed 2 was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). steps The district court followed the necessary procedural in sentencing Singleton, sentencing Guidelines as considered the relevant 18 applicable U.S.C. ยง appropriately advisory, Guidelines 3553(a) range, (2006) the calculated properly treated and and factors weighed in light Singleton's individual characteristics and circumstances. the of The district court adequately explained its reasons for denying a variance, noting that Singleton had the benefit of education and a masters degree, he was a role model in the community helping the unfortunate, and yet, while employed with an agency entrusted to aid the poor of the community, Singleton used his position to steal the money designated for the needy. Because the court adequately explained its reasons for imposing sentence at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, we conclude that the sentence is not an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within Guidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Singleton, in writing, of the right to petition 3 the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Singleton 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 Singleton. 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 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.
