US v. William Satterwhite, No. 13-4599 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4599 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM ISOM SATTERWHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:12-cr-00332-CMC-1) Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014 Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Isom Satterwhite appeals his conviction and the 180-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Satterwhite s guilty plea, whether Satterwhite was properly classified as an armed career criminal, and whether the sentence is reasonable. Satterwhite was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed one. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. Because Satterwhite did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, [Satterwhite] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. Muhammad, Satterwhite 478 F.3d satisfies 247, these 249 (4th Cir. requirements, United States v. 2007). correction Even if of the error remains within [the court s] discretion, which [the court] 2 should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, proceedings. omitted). the integrity Id. or public (internal reputation quotation marks of judicial and citation Our review of the record leads us to conclude that district court Satterwhite s guilty complied plea, with which Rule was 11 entered in accepting knowingly and procedural and voluntarily. This substantive standard. court reviews reasonableness a sentence under an for abuse of discretion Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). evaluating procedural reasonableness, this court In considers 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 supported by the record, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 552 U.S. at 49-51. Gall, If the sentence is free of procedural error, the court reviews it for substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. 51. This court presumes that a sentence within or below a properly calculated reasonable. 2012). Gall, 552 U.S. at Guidelines range is substantively United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. Moreover, a statutorily 3 required sentence is per se reasonable. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). A defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence as an armed career criminal when he violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2012). A violent felony is a conviction punishable by more than one year of imprisonment for a crime that (i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (2) is burglary, explosives, or arson, otherwise serious potential U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). investigation risk report of or extortion, involves physical In conduct injury this included involves that to case, three prior use presents another. the of a 18 presentence convictions of burglary in South Carolina and one conviction for strong-arm robbery in felonies. Florida as predicate convictions for violent We have previously held that convictions under South Carolina s burglary statute are violent felonies under § 924(e). United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, Satterwhite was correctly classified as an armed career criminal. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally reasonable. The sentence is also substantively reasonable, as the district court could not have imposed less than the statutory 4 mandatory minimum sentence, which is also within the properly calculated Guidelines F.3d 862 850, (4th range. Cir. United 2005) States v. (absent Robinson, government motion 404 for departure for substantial assistance under § 3553(e), district court has no discretion to sentence below statutory minimum). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Satterwhite s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Satterwhite, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Satterwhite 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 Satterwhite. 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.
