Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-4608
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02340-TLW-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Leroy Wilson appeals his judgment and sentence
after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine
hydrochloride
(b)(1)(C)
(2006),
in
and
violation
possession
of
of
21
U.S.C.
firearm
841(a)(1),
during
and
in
(2006).
to
Anders
Wilsons
v.
attorney
California,
386
has
filed
U.S.
738
brief
(1967),
We affirm.
complied
plea.
proceedings
plain error.
with
Fed.
Because
in
the
R.
Crim.
Wilson
district
did
court,
P.
not
we
11
when
accepting
challenge
review
the
this
Rule
issue
his
11
for
535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652,
657 (4th Cir. 2007).
that Wilson has not shown any plain error by the district court.
2
Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 (4th Cir. 2004) (When a defendant
pleads guilty, he waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the
proceedings conducted prior to entry of the plea); see also
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (When a criminal
defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact
guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not
thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation
of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the
guilty plea, as a guilty plea represents a break in the chain
of events which has preceded it in the criminal process).
Finally,
district
court
Wilson
committed
raises
the
procedural
issue
or
of
whether
substantive
error
standard.
first
step
sentence
under
deferential
this
review
requires
us
in
We
abuse-of-discretion
the
to
ensure
that
The
the
improperly
calculating
the
Guidelines
range,
failing
to
We presume that a
sentencing,
the
opportunity
Guidelines
to
appropriate.
argue
3553(a)
sentence
district
range
for
and
whatever
court
give
should
the
first
parties
sentence
they
an
deem
the
factors
requested
by
to
determine
either
whether
they
support
Id.
When
rendering
party.
the
a
sentence, the district court must make and place on the record
an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of
the case.
explaining
the
chosen
sentence,
the
sentencing
v.
United
States,
551
U.S.
338,
356
(2007).
While
We
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
judgment.
petition
be
filed,
but
counsel
believes
that
such
Counsels motion
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED