US v. Tyrone Davis, No. 12-4883 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cr-02341-RBH-1) Submitted: March 13, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tyrone agreement, to Davis being a pled felon guilty, in pursuant possession of to a a plea firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment. He appealed. Davis counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Davis guilty plea and whether the district court erred in sentencing Davis. Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm. Because Davis did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Rule 11 hearing are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [a litigant] 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). Even if Davis satisfies these requirements, we retain discretion to correct the error, which we should not exercise unless the error seriously affects the fairness, reputation of judicial proceedings. establishes that the district Id. court 2 integrity or public A review of the record complied with Rule 11 s requirements, ensuring that Davis plea was knowing and voluntary, that he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and the sentence he faced, and that he committed the offense to which he was pleading guilty. Accordingly, we affirm Davis conviction. We review Davis sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, assessing reasonableness. it for procedural and substantive Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2008). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court properly calculated Davis Guidelines range and offered a sufficiently reasoned explanation for the sentence Thus, the sentence is procedurally reasonable. imposed. Further, Davis sentence to the statutory mandated minimum terms of imprisonment is per se substantively reasonable. 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. United States v. Farrior, 2008). Accordingly, we affirm Davis sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 3 leave to withdraw from representation. was served on Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof his client. 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