US v. Ryan Eaddy, No. 13-4174 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER EADDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00604-TLW-1) Submitted: September 10, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ryan Eaddy appeals his conviction and 200-month prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). pursuant to Anders v. Eaddy s counsel has filed a brief California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Eaddy s guilty plea and whether Eaddy s sentence is reasonable. Eaddy, though given the opportunity to do so, has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. We first address Eaddy s guilty plea. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and relinquishing by pleading guilty. the various rights he is Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The district court also must ensure that the defendant s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not result from force, threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. 2 P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this Court should accord deference to the trial court s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Eaddy did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or raise any objections during the Rule 11 colloquy, the plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error. States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir. United 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was affected his substantial rights. U.S. 725, 732 (1993). A plain; and (3) the error United States v. Olano, 507 defendant s substantial rights are affected if the court determines that the error influenced the defendant s decision to plead guilty and impaired his ability to evaluate with eyes open the direct attendant risks of accepting criminal responsibility. United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error). Our review of the record reveals that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11. The district court properly ensured that Johnson s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. 3 The district court properly informed Eaddy of the maximum possible penalties he faced and of the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines. Though the district court did not inform Eaddy of his right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E), we conclude that this error did not affect Eaddy s substantial rights because there is no indication that, but for the error, Eaddy would not have pled guilty. Next, sentence. we address the reasonableness of Eaddy s We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we first examine the sentence for significant procedural error, including failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, adequately the chosen sentence. or failing to explain Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we take into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume on appeal that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 4 551 U.S. 338, 346 56 (2007) (permitting appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and gave within-Guidelines sentence. sufficient reasons for Eaddy s Moreover, Eaddy has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore Eaddy s affirm motion to the district remand. This court s Court judgment requires and that deny counsel inform Eaddy, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Eaddy 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 Eaddy. 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 5
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.
