US v. James Streater, No. 12-4605 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4605 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD STREATER, a/k/a Slim, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:11-cr-02161-TLW-10) Submitted: January 8, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, January 17, 2013 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Thomas McBratney, III, MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Streater appeals his conviction and 100month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2006). On appeal, Streater s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 ( Rule 11 ) during the plea hearing and whether the court erred in denying Streater s motion for a downward departure. Streater was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm. Counsel questions whether the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting Streater s guilty plea. review of the substantially plea hearing complied with reveals Rule 11 that in the district conducting the fully Our court plea colloquy, and committed no error warranting correction on plain error review. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review); United States v. Olano, 507 standard). U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (detailing plain error Thus, the district court did not err in finding Streater s guilty plea knowing and voluntary. 2 Counsel also questions the district court s denial of his motion for a downward departure. It is clear, however, that the district court understood its power to depart downward but made a reasoned decision not to do so. to review the court s decision. We thus lack authority See United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008) ( We lack the authority to review a sentencing court s denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so. ). 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 Streater, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Streater requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this a petition court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Streater. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
