United States v. Joshua McNeely, 706 F. App'x 128

Defendant Joshua Alan McNeely pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
He was sentenced by the district court to 162 months’ imprisonment.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but raising two questions: whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was adequate and whether the sentence was reasonable.
McNeely did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of the right to do so.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Rule 11 claim for plain error and the sentence for abuse of discretion, then affirmed the district court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy	McNeely (through counsel) questioned whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when accepting the guilty plea	Government argued the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and the colloquy complied with Rule 11	Court found no plain error; district court substantially complied and plea was knowing and voluntary
Reasonableness of sentence	McNeely challenged the reasonableness of his 162-month sentence	Government maintained the sentence was within the Guidelines and procedurally proper	Court found the sentence procedurally sound and, because it was within the Guidelines, presumptively reasonable; presumption not rebutted

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to certify lack of meritorious claims on appeal)
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 review)
United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing review)
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)