**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 4601** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICKEY LEE MILLER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00038

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : March 17, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston

- Salem , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rickey Lee Miller, Jr., pled guilty to failure to appear for sentenci ng, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii) (2012)
. The district court calculated Miller’s Guidelines ra nge at 10 to 1 6 months’ imprisonment,
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (201 3 ), and sentenced Miller
to 14 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritor ious issues for appeal, but raising as issues for review whether the district court reversibly erred in accepting Miller’s guilty plea and abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Miller was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, bu t he has not done so. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. Because Miller did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 524

- 26 (4th Cir. 2002). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show: (1) there was error; (2) the

error wa s plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 732 (1993). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by3 showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v . Massenburg , 564 F.3d 337 , 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Miller’s guilty plea and that the court’s omissions did not affect Miller’s substantial rights. Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court ensured that the plea was supported by an independent basis in fact and that Miller entered the plea knowingl y and voluntarily with an understanding of the
consequences. United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of Miller’s guilty plea. Turning to Miller’s senten ce, we review it for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 35 53(a) (2012) factors, selected a sentence based on4 clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence. Id. at 49

– 51. If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. Any sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian , 756 F.3d 295 , 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Such a presumption can only be rebutted by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when mea sured against the § 3553(a) factors. Id. In this case, the district court correctly calculated and considered the advisory Guidelines range, heard ar gument from counsel, and heard allocution from Miller . The court explained that the 14

- month sentence was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances of Miller’s offense conduct , his history and characteristics , and the need for the sentence to ref lect the seriousness of the offense and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)

- (B). Miller does not offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that his within

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reaso nable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Miller.5 Finally, in accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and amended judgment
. This court requires that counsel inform Miller , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Miller requests that a petition be fi led, 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 Miller. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED