United States v. Andres McCormick
20-4538
4th Cir.Jul 22, 2021Background:
- Andres McCormick pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to distribution of heroin and was sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues; McCormick did not file a pro se supplemental brief and the Government declined to file a brief.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy; McCormick did not move to withdraw his plea or preserve any Rule 11 challenge.
- The district court calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, allowed argument and allocution, and explained its sentence with reference to relevant § 3553(a) factors.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record (under plain-error review for the plea colloquy and abuse-of-discretion for sentencing), concluded the plea was valid and the within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy | McCormick would argue the plea was not properly informed/knowing | Court complied substantially with Rule 11; plea was voluntary and had factual basis | Plea was valid; Rule 11 substantially complied with (plain-error review) |
| Reasonableness of sentence (procedural & substantive) | McCormick would challenge calculation or proportionality of 70-month within-Guidelines sentence | Sentencing range correctly calculated; court considered § 3553(a) factors; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable | Sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
| Sufficiency of appellate (Anders) review | Counsel asserted no meritorious issues in Anders brief; McCormick raised nothing pro se | Court must independently review the record under Anders and ensure no meritorious issues exist | Court performed full Anders review, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds of frivolous appeal)
- United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2016) (Rule 11 plea-colloquy standards and review)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (requirement that plea be voluntary and supported by a factual basis)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing; procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)