US v. Marion Lesean Daniels, No. 17-4698 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4698 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION LESEAN DANIELS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00195-CCE-1) Submitted: May 29, 2018 Decided: June 4, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd A. Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marion Lesean Daniels appeals his convictions and 120-month sentence after pleading guilty to five counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012). Daniels’ 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 Daniels’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Daniels has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief, but he has not filed one. We affirm. Daniels did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, and thus we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate “that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and (3) affects substantial rights. Even if an appellant satisfies these elements, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we detect no reversible error in the district court’s Rule 11 plea colloquy, we affirm Daniels’ convictions. We review Daniels’ sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [Sentencing] Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing to adequately explain 2 the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). If there is no significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is reasonable, and a defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error in the district court’s imposition of Daniels’ sentence. The district court properly calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence Daniels received. Further, Daniels has not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines-range sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Daniels, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Daniels 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 Daniels. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
