US v. Damon Quick, No. 13-4522 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4522 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAMON ANTOINE QUICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00291-JAB-1) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diana Stavroulakis, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Antoine Quick appeals his convictions and 216-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to seven counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. count of On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the court had jurisdiction over Quick s crimes, whether Quick s plea was knowing and voluntary, and whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. Quick was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. declined to file a response brief. The Government has For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, the district court had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012). Quick pled guilty to a federal crime, and the district court therefore had original jurisdiction over this case. Thus, this claim is without merit. Turning to the guilty plea, because Quick did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the guilty plea proceeding States v. is Martinez, reviewed for 277 517, F.3d plain 525 error (4th only. Cir. United 2002). We conclude that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Quick s guilty 2 plea. The court ensured that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore find the plea valid and enforceable. States See United v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010)( In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding [it], granting the defendant s solemn declaration of guilt a presumption of truthfulness. ). We review Quick s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration procedural of both the reasonableness of the sentence. Id. and substantive In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous explained the selected sentence. If the sentence is facts, and sufficiently Id. at 49-51. free of significant procedural error, we review it for substantive reasonableness, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. If the sentence is within the properly calculated Id. at 51. Guidelines range, we apply a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 3 289 (4th Cir. 2012). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Quick. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and discern no error in Quick s sentence. adopted the undisputed Guidelines range and The court sentenced Quick within this range and the statutory sentencing range applicable to his offense. In addition, the court gave a thorough explanation for its sentencing, addressing Quick s argument for a lower sentence as well as the Government s arguments for a longer sentence. presumption of Finally, the reasonableness record accorded fails his to rebut the within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Quick s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Quick, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Quick requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 4 leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Quick. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the 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.
