United States v. Timmie Taborn, 693 F. App'x 224

Defendant Timmie Taborn pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon; other counts were dismissed.
He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.
Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief, questioning (1) the district court’s denial of Taborn’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) whether the below-Guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Taborn filed pro se supplemental and amended briefs raising additional claims.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw the plea after a Rule 11 proceeding; the court later misstated the count at sentencing but the record showed the misstatement was a harmless slip.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the plea-withdrawal denial for abuse of discretion (applying the Moore factors and Rule 11 standards) and reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taborn may withdraw his guilty plea	Taborn argued the plea was not knowing/voluntary and sought withdrawal	Government argued Rule 11 colloquy was adequate and plea should stand	District court’s denial affirmed; plea found knowing and voluntary under Moore factors and Rule 11 (no abuse of discretion)
Whether the 108-month sentence was reasonable	Taborn argued sentence was procedurally/substantively unreasonable	Government argued district court properly calculated Guidelines, considered §3553(a), and explained sentence	Sentence affirmed as procedurally and substantively reasonable under Gall; within/below Guidelines presumption not rebutted
Validity of Taborn’s pro se claims attacking pre-plea proceedings	Taborn raised various nonjurisdictional defects	Government relied on guilty-plea waiver of nonjurisdictional defects	Pro se claims rejected; guilty plea generally waives nonjurisdictional pre-plea challenges (per Fitzgerald)
District court’s misstatement of count at sentencing	Taborn pointed out the court said it was sentencing on the wrong count	Government noted the record, plea agreement, and judge’s slip show intent	Error was harmless; record clearly shows conviction was on Count Two as pleaded

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duties in frivolous-appeal contexts)
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal denial)
Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d 345 (4th Cir.) (defendant’s burden to show withdrawal warranted)
Lambey v. United States, 974 F.2d 1389 (en banc) (presumption that a valid Rule 11 plea is final)
Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991) (Moore factors for plea-withdrawal motions)
Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300 (4th Cir. 1996) (importance of fairness of Rule 11 colloquy)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-or-below-Guidelines sentences)
Fitzgerald, 820 F.3d 107 (4th Cir.) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pre-plea defects)