US v. John Blanton, II, No. 13-4018 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHN ALVIN BLANTON, II, Defendant -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-00194-CCE-1) Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: August 2, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Alvin Blanton, II, appeals his convictions and 184-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and possession of a stolen firearm, Blanton s in counsel violation has filed of a 18 brief U.S.C. § 922(j) pursuant to (2006). Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Blanton was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm. Before accepting Blanton s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Blanton s plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court subsequently followed all necessary procedural steps in sentencing Blanton, properly calculating his Guidelines range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and the parties arguments, and providing assessment based on the facts presented. States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). an individualized See Gall v. United Blanton s within-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he 2 has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Blanton, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Blanton 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 Blanton. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
