US v. Anthony Roberts, No. 12-4370 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4370 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY ROBERTS, a/k/a Noochie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00035-LMB-2) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Brian Donnelly, J. BRIAN DONNELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Owings, Kara Martin Traster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Roberts appeals his 120-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking (2006). crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has examined the record questioning and the found no meritorious validity of grounds Roberts for guilty appeal, plea and but the reasonableness of Roberts statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Roberts was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file one. We affirm. Because Roberts did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Roberts] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court complied with Rule 11, and that Roberts guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. 2 We also conclude that Roberts procedurally and substantively reasonable. sentence is both We review a district court s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see standard. also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider the whether district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently Id. sentence. Finally, explained we review the the selected substantive reasonableness of the sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). Here, the district court properly calculated Roberts Guidelines sentence, sentenced Roberts to statutory mandatory considered two the consecutive minimum on each § 3553(a) sixty-month count. conclude that Roberts sentence is reasonable. 3 factors, We terms, and the therefore 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 Roberts, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Roberts counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. requests such this that a a petition petition court for be would leave to filed, be but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Roberts. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
