UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOEL WAYNE TADLOCK,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:05-cr-00670-TLW-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 16, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH, 

JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William 

Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Joel Wayne Tadlock pled 

guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to 

distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams 

or more of a mixture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006) (“Count One”), and 

knowingly using and carrying firearms during and in relation to, 

and possessing firearms in furtherance of, a drug trafficking 

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (“Count 

Three”). The district court sentenced Tadlock to 324 months’ 

imprisonment, consisting of 264 months on Count One and a 

consecutive term of sixty months on Count Three. 

Tadlock’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 grounds for appeal, but asking 

this court to review Tadlock’s convictions and sentence. Though 

advised of his right to do so, Tadlock has declined to file a 

pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel first concludes there were no deficiencies in 

the district court’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 

hearing. After a careful review of the record, we agree. The 

district court substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 

11 in accepting Tadlock’s guilty plea, ensuring Tadlock entered 

his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was 
3

supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. 

Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62 (2002); United States v. Mastrapa, 509 

F.3d 652, 659-60 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm 

Tadlock’s convictions. 

Counsel next acknowledges that Tadlock’s sentence is 

reasonable, both procedurally and substantively. We agree.

We review the sentence imposed by the district court 

for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). Our review of 

the record leads us to conclude the district court followed the 

necessary procedural steps in sentencing Tadlock, properly 

calculating the Guidelines range and considering that 

recommendation in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

Accordingly, we will afford Tadlock’s within-Guidelines sentence 

a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 

216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (upholding rebuttable presumption of 

reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). 

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 
4

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 materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED