UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelius Maurice JACKSON, a/k/a Buddy Love, a/k/a Buddy, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4631
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 13, 2016. Decided: October 17, 2016.
665 Fed. Appx. 178
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelius Maurice Jackson appeals his conviction and 132-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. On appeal, counsel for Jackson filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but seeking review of the adequacy of the district court‘s
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.
Turning to Jackson‘s sentence, we review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to consider the
Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive sentencing error by the district court. The district court correctly calculated Jackson‘s offense level, criminal history, and advisory Guidelines range. The court afforded the parties an adequate opportunity to present arguments concerning the appropriate sentence and provided Jackson an opportunity to allocute. Finally, the court provided an adequate, individualized explanation of the below-Guidelines sentence. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Jackson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jackson 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 Jackson. 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