US v. Tracy Andrews, Jr., No. 14-4289 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4289 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TRACY DEWAYNE ANDREWS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-CCE-2) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & TALCOTT, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tracy Dewayne Andrews, Jr., appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Andrews counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Andrews was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. brief. The Government has declined to file a response Following a careful review of the record, we affirm. Before accepting Andrews guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Andrews plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court followed all requisite procedural steps in sentencing Andrews, by calculating the correct Guidelines range; considering the parties arguments, Andrews allocution, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors; and providing individualized assessment based on the facts presented. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). an See Andrews within-Guidelines sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he does not meet 2 his burden to rebut this presumption. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Andrews, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Andrews 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 Andrews. 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 3
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.
