US v. John Kearney, No. 12-5048 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-5048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN JUNIOR KEARNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00139-CCE-1) Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew Charles Cochran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Junior Kearney appeals his conviction and 100month sentence following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). (1967), there In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 Kearney s are whether no the counsel has meritorious district court filed issues a for adequately brief appeal certifying but complied that questioning with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when accepting Kearney s plea and whether Kearney s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Kearney has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, we review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). the district court substantially complied with Rule United Because 11 when accepting Kearney s plea, we conclude that the plea was knowing and voluntary and, therefore, final and binding. We review Kearney s sentence for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. 38, procedural 51 (2007). errors, We must including Gall v. United States, 552 first review improperly for significant calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing under 2 clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 51; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). find a sentence procedurally substantive reasonableness. reasonable may we Only if we consider its United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, we conclude that Kearney s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly range calculated Kearney s Guidelines and clearly explained the basis for imposing a sentence within that range based on the 18 U.S.C. individual circumstances. 445 F.3d 375, 379 § 3553(a) factors and Kearney s See United States v. Montes-Pineda, (4th Cir. 2006) (within-Guidelines range sentence is presumed reasonable). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. therefore affirm Kearney s conviction and sentence. We This court requires that counsel inform Kearney, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kearney counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. requests such this that a a petition petition court for would leave to be be filed, but frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kearney. We dispense with oral argument because 3 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.
