Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04906/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tremaine Bernard Coats
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4906

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TREMAINE BERNARD COATS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00117)

Submitted: October 12, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David C. Sutton, SUTTON LAW OFFICES, P.A., Greenville, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4906 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/13/2007 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine Bernard Coats pled guilty without the benefit of

a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute

more than fifty grams of crack cocaine and a quantity of heroin

(Count 1), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and

traveling between North Carolina and New York to promote and

conduct an illegal drug business (Count 2), in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1952 (2000). The district court sentenced Coats to a 151-

month term of imprisonment on Count 1 and to a concurrent sentence

of sixty months on Count 2. Coats appeals his convictions and

sentence. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the

colloquy held in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the

reasonableness of Coats’ sentence. Counsel states, however, that,

in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Coats was

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

not done so. We affirm.

Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the

plea hearing but does not specify any deficiencies in the district

court’s Rule 11 inquiries. Because Coats did not move in the

district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground raised on

appeal, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain

error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.

2002) (discussing standard). Our careful review of the record

Appeal: 06-4906 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/13/2007 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

convinces us that the district court substantially complied with

the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Coats’ guilty plea and that

any omission on the court’s part did not affect Coats’ substantial

rights. Moreover, the district court ensured that Coats entered

his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported

by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

Counsel also suggests that Coats’ sentence is

unreasonable. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

courts must calculate the applicable guideline range after making

the appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in

conjunction with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18

U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v.

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

2054 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it

“is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.”

Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]

sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339,

341 (4th Cir. 2006); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2462-69 (2007) (upholding application of rebuttable presumption of

reasonableness to within-guidelines sentence).

Here, before the district court reentered the criminal

judgment to afford Coats an opportunity to appeal his sentence, see

Appeal: 06-4906 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/13/2007 Pg: 3 of 5
- 4 -

United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39 (4th Cir. 1993), the district

court resentenced Coats in accordance with Booker, properly

calculating the guideline range, appropriately treating the

guidelines as advisory, and considering the § 3553(a) factors.

Coats’ 151-month prison term on Count 1 is the bottom of the

guideline range and is below the statutory maximum sentence of life

imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.

2007), and his sentence on Count 2 is the statutory maximum of five

years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3); USSG § 5G1.1(a). Finally,

neither Coats nor the record suggests any information so compelling

as to rebut the presumption that a sentence within the properly

calculated guideline range is reasonable. We therefore conclude

that the sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for any meritorious issues and have found none.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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

Appeal: 06-4906 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/13/2007 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-4906 Doc: 45 Filed: 11/13/2007 Pg: 5 of 5