US v. Ron Sowell, Jr., No. 13-4445 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4445 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RON TYRONE SOWELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00906-RBH-1) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 21, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ron Tyrone Sowell, Jr., pled guilty to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 2119(1) (2012), and received a withinGuidelines sentence of 115 months imprisonment. On appeal, Sowell s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking this court to consider whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Sowell s guilty plea and whether the district court adequately explained its reasons for the chosen sentence. Sowell has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging various sentencing enhancements. response. The Government declined to file a We affirm. Because Sowell did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 26 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability district that court s he would Rule 11 not have pled omissions. 2 guilty United but for the States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). review of the record reveals that the Our thorough district court fully complied with Rule 11 in conducting the guilty plea colloquy. Thus, we conclude that Sowell s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact, and we find no error in the district court s acceptance of his guilty plea. Next, counsel challenges court s explanation of the sentence. as inadequate the district We review any sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). procedurally reasonable sufficiently explains if, its among reasons other for A sentence is things, imposing the it. court United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). every sentence requires an adequate explanation, While when the district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range, the explanation need not be elaborate or lengthy. United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court provided an adequate explanation of Sowell s sentence and therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing its chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have examined Sowell s pro se claims and the entire record for potentially meritorious 3 issues and have found none. district court. We affirm the judgment of the This court requires that counsel inform Sowell, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move to withdraw. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sowell. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4