Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04631/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04631-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cornelius Maurice Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4631

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CORNELIUS MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a Buddy Love, a/k/a Buddy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cr-00230-DKC-2)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen H. Orenberg, ORENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C., North Bethesda, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Ray Daniel McKenzie, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4631 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 5
2

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 (1967), 

asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but 

seeking review of the adequacy of the district court’s Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy and the reasonableness of Jackson’s 

sentence.* Jackson did not file a supplemental pro se brief, and 

the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders

brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 

 * Counsel also questions the validity of Jackson’s appellate 

waiver contained in the plea agreement. The Government has not 

sought to enforce the waiver in this case; accordingly, we 

conduct a full review of the record as required by Anders. See

United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007) 

(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a 

responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do 

nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders

review.”).

Appeal: 15-4631 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 5
3

1991). The district court also must ensure that the defendant’s 

plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, 

and did not result from force, threats, or promises not 

contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), 

(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. “In reviewing the adequacy of 

compliance with Rule 11, [we] should accord deference to the 

trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated 

colloquy with the defendant.” DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116. In 

addition, because Jackson did not move to withdraw his guilty 

plea in the district court or otherwise preserve any allegation 

of Rule 11 error, we review the plea colloquy for plain error. 

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). We 

conclude that the district court correctly found Jackson’s plea 

knowing and voluntary and that Jackson has not established plain 

error in his Rule 11 hearing. 

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 (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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2012) sentencing factors, or failing to adequately explain the 

sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, 

Appeal: 15-4631 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 5
4

we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. We 

presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. United States v. 

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). 

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 

Appeal: 15-4631 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 4 of 5
5

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-4631 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 5 of 5