US v. Shamika Clinkscale, No. 14-4328 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4328 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SHAMIKA CHANTAY CLINKSCALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-WO-3) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shamika Chantay Clinkscale appeals her conviction and thirty-month possession sentence of stolen imposed following firearms, §§ 922(j) and 2 (2012). in her guilty violation of plea 18 to U.S.C. On appeal, Clinkscale’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appeal asserting but that there questioning are whether no meritorious Clinkscale’s issues guilty plea for was knowing and voluntary and whether her sentence is reasonable. Clinkscale was notified of her right supplemental brief but has not done so. declined to file a response brief. to file a pro se The Government has Finding no error, we affirm. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must conduct a colloquy with the defendant in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the charges to which she is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalties she faces, and the rights she is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court must ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Clinkscale did not move to withdraw her guilty plea or otherwise identify in the district court any error in 2 the plea proceedings, we colloquy for plain error. 337, 342 (4th otherwise, complied Cir. in the with the review the adequacy of the plea United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 2009). plea We discern colloquy. requirements no Rather, of Rule error, the 11, plain court or fully ensuring that Clinkscale’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. We therefore conclude her guilty plea is valid and enforceable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). district including court committed improper no Gall v. United We “must first ensure that the significant calculation of the procedural error,” Guidelines range, insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and inadequate explanation of the sentence imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). If we find no procedural error, we examine the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. presume that Clinkscale’s substantively reasonable. 289 (4th Cir. 2012). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). within-Guidelines sentence We is United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, Clinkscale bears the burden to “rebut the 3 presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Montes-Pineda, 2006) 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude Clinkscale’s sentence is reasonable. district court correctly calculated Clinkscale’s The Guidelines range and considered that range and the parties’ arguments in determining the explanation of sentence. the § 3553(a) factors. presumption of The sentence court it provided imposed, a grounded detailed in the Moreover, Clinkscale has not rebutted the reasonableness accorded her 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 Clinkscale’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Clinkscale, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Clinkscale believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 Clinkscale. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not 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.
