Case ID: f-appx_627/html/0246-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Shane KING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 10, 2015.
    Decided: Dec. 30, 2015.
    
      Lisa S. Costner, Lisa S. Costner, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Shane King appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 151 months of imprisonment pursuant to his conviction for conspiring to manufacture quantities of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). King’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 NS. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case, as well as King’s pro se supplemental'brief, and have found no meritorious issues. Before-accepting King’s guilty plea, the district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 and ensuring that King’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.1991). The district court made no significant procedural error at senténcing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and King has not rebutted our appellate presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 421, 190 L.Ed.2d 293 (2014).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform King, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If King 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 King. 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.