Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04574/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Remario Revonte Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4574

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REMARIO REVONTE AUSTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:05-cr-00815-HMH-9)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4574 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 4
*

Although it was error for the district court not to discuss

the particular portions of Austin’s plea agreement during the Rule

11 colloquy, and this error was plain, we conclude the error did

not affect Austin’s substantial rights. See United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 734 (1993); United States

v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Remario Revonte Austin pled guilty pursuant to a plea

agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty or more grams of cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and was

sentenced to seventy-eight months in prison. Counsel for Austin

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), alleging that he has found no meritorious issues for

appeal, but asserting that the district court should have reduced

Austin’s Guidelines range by three for acceptance of responsibility

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(b) (2005),

despite his post-plea arrest for unrelated drug activity. Austin

has filed a pro se supplemental brief summarily claiming that a

federal officer inappropriately arranged for the post-plea state

arrest. The Government has declined to file a responding brief.

Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

review. After a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing at which Austin

admitted his guilt,* the district court adopted the findings

Appeal: 07-4574 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

contained in the presentence investigation report without

objection, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, and

sentenced Austin to the low end of a properly calculated Guidelines

range. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). Moreover, it was not

error for the district court to refuse to apply a three-point

reduction to Austin’s Guidelines range because the Guidelines’

commentary explicitly provides that a district court may consider

whether the defendant withdrew from criminal conduct when

determining whether to apply the three-point reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(b) (2005);

see also United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 240 (4th Cir. 2007)

(“The decision to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction

often depends on the actions of the defendant following his or her

arrest or plea.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. This court requires that counsel inform Austin in writing

of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If

Austin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may motion this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on Austin. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 07-4574 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

 AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4574 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 4 of 4