United States v. Charles Curtin
662 F. App'x 198
4th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Charles Brian Curtin pleaded guilty (written plea agreement) to a cocaine conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- District court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 262–327 months and sentenced Curtin to 200 months (below-Guidelines).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues; Curtin received notice and did not file a pro se brief. The Government did not file an appellate brief.
- Because Curtin did not move to withdraw his plea below, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Rule 11 plea colloquy for plain error.
- The court reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard (Gall).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea under Rule 11 | Curtin implicitly argues plea may be infirm (no withdrawal motion filed) | Government contends plea was knowing and voluntary | No plain error; plea complied with Rule 11 |
| Standard of review for plea | N/A (appellate review only) | N/A | Plain-error review applies because no motion to withdraw plea was made below |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Curtin challenges sentence procedures implicitly | Government: court correctly calculated Guidelines, considered § 3553(a), allowed allocution | No procedural error; court correctly calculated range and considered factors |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Curtin argues sentence was unreasonable under § 3553(a) factors | Government supports below-Guidelines sentence as reasonable | Below-Guidelines 200-month sentence is substantively reasonable; presumption applies and not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel filing a brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues)
- United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review when defendant did not move to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2007) (elements and discretion in plain-error harmlessness analysis)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for sentences within or below Guidelines)
- United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2006) (rebuts presumption only if sentence is unreasonable under § 3553(a) factors)