Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04129/USCOURTS-ca4-10-04129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Dean Blake
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY DEAN BLAKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00783-HMH-1)

Submitted: June 16, 2010 Decided: July 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob 

Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4129 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/06/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Dean Blake pled guilty to theft of Postal 

Service money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500 (2006). 

The district court sentenced Blake to twelve months in prison,

the top of the advisory guidelines range, and ordered the 

sentence to run consecutively to his undischarged state 

sentence. On appeal, Blake’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in 

his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal but 

questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Blake was 

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but 

has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

Although counsel identifies no error in the plea 

colloquy, we have reviewed the plea transcript and conclude that 

the district court substantially complied with the mandates of 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, in accepting Blake’s guilty plea. Although 

the district court did not inform Blake of his right to confront 

and cross-examine witnesses, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E), 

we find that the court’s omission did not affect Blake’s 

decision to plead guilty. See United States v. Martinez, 277 

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing plain error standard 

of review); United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 

1995) (discussing factors courts should consider in determining 

whether substantial rights affected in decision to plead 

Appeal: 10-4129 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/06/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

guilty). Moreover, the district court ensured that Blake’s plea 

was knowing and voluntary and was supported by a sufficient 

factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 

119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Counsel suggests that the district court erred by 

ordering Blake’s sentence to run consecutively to an 

undischarged state sentence. An appellate court reviews a 

sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This 

review requires consideration of both the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. This court must 

assess whether the district court properly calculated the 

advisory guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

(2006) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 

U.S. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th 

Cir. 2010); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009). If there is no procedural error, the appellate 

court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

“examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether 

the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that 

the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in 

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 

(4th Cir. 2010).

Appeal: 10-4129 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/06/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed Blake’s 

sentence and conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively 

to the undischarged state sentence. The court considered the 

facts of Blake’s case in imposing a consecutive sentence at the 

top of the guidelines range. The court emphasized that Blake 

had amassed twenty-six criminal history points (twice the number 

required for placement in criminal history category VI) for his

repeated violations of the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b) 

(2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Thus, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel 

inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the 

client 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 

the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 10-4129 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/06/2010 Pg: 4 of 4