US v. Jarmarphio Moose, No. 14-4391 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JARMARPHIO SHANTEZ MOOSE, Defendant -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-1) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: December 18, 2014 Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jarmarphio Shantez sentence imposed 120-month Moose appeals following his his conviction guilty plea and to possessing firearms as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Moose’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious issues for appeal, but citing the voluntariness of Moose’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. Moose was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. a response. The Government has declined to file Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. Before accepting Moose’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, complying with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Moose’s 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 fulfilled all requisite procedural steps in sentencing Moose, correctly calculating his Guidelines range; considering the parties’ arguments, Moose’s allocution, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors; and providing individualized assessment fully grounded in those factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). an See We presume on appeal that Moose’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, and Moose has not met 2 his burden to rebut this presumption. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Moose’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Moose, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Moose requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Moose. 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