US v. Rusty Edwards, No. 13-4142 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4142 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RUSTY MARK EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00042-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: September 13, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Weese, Sheperdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Jarod J. Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rusty Mark Edwards pled guilty in accordance with a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Edwards now accordance He was sentenced to sixty months in prison. appeals. with His Anders v. attorney has California, filed 386 a U.S. brief 738 in (1967), questioning whether there were errors at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and meritorious at sentencing, issues for but appeal. stating Edwards supplemental brief raising two issues. that has there filed a are no pro se Finding no error, we affirm. Our review of the transcript of Edwards Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing discloses that the district court substantially complied with the Rule, Edwards guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and there was a factual basis for the plea. * We accordingly affirm Edwards conviction. We applying review Edwards sentence an abuse-of-discretion * for standard. reasonableness, Gall v. United We find no merit to the arguments raised in the pro se brief. First, Edwards valid guilty plea waives his right to challenge the validity of a search of his home. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Second, we reject Edwards conclusory claim that his guilty plea was invalid because it was based in part on counsel s alleged assertion that Edwards would receive probation, not a term of imprisonment. Edwards sworn representations at the Rule 11 hearing are at odds with this claim. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). 2 States, 552 U.S. consideration 38, of 46, both 51 (2007). the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. whether the district court This review and Id. at 51. properly requires substantive We first assess calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2010). If there is no procedural error, we review the substantive totality court reasonableness of the abused its of the circumstances discretion to in sentence, see examin[ing] whether concluding the that the sentencing the sentence . . . satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude that Edwards sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court correctly calculated Edwards Guidelines range to be 87-108 months and adequately explained its reasons for imposing a variant sentence of sixty months-the statutory minimum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Edwards conviction and sentence. motion to withdraw is denied at this time. 3 Counsel s This court requires counsel, in writing, to inform Edwards of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Edwards requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Edwards. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
