UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA GANT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00437-JAB-1)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Gant, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to one count of distribution of a mixture and 

substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). The 

district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 24 

months. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), Gant’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting that the 

court review the reasonableness of Gant’s sentence. Gant has 

filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that (1) the district 

court lacked jurisdiction over his offense because it occurred 

entirely within North Carolina; (2) his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable; and (3) his sentence is contrary to 

United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en 

banc). 

Turning first to the validity of Gant’s guilty plea, to 

assure that a defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary, Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 requires a district court to “inform the defendant 

of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the 

charge(s) to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum 

penalty, the maximum possible penalty and various rights.” 

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty 
3

plea, we review the plea hearing for plain error. United 

States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant

can only satisfy the plain error standard if he shows that, but 

for an error by the district court during the Rule 11 

proceeding, there is a reasonable probability that he would not 

have entered his plea. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 

337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). Our review of the record reveals that 

the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 by 

ensuring that Gant was competent to plead guilty and that he 

knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea after 

consultation with counsel. We further conclude that Gant’s 

argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to take his 

guilty plea is without merit as Congress, pursuant to its 

Commerce Clause power, may regulate the intrastate possession of 

a controlled substance where there is an interstate market for 

the controlled substance. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17-22 

(2005).

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 

(2007). We first review for significant procedural error, and 

if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider

substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. Procedural error 

includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 
4

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately 

explain the selected sentence. Id. Substantive reasonableness 

is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, 

and if the sentence imposed falls within or below the properlycalculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption of 

reasonableness. United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th 

Cir. 2012). Our review of the record reveals neither a 

procedural error nor anything overcoming the applicable 

presumption of reasonableness that accompanies the district 

court’s imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence.*

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Gant, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Gant 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 Gant.

 * Where Gant was neither subject to a mandatory minimum 

penalty nor a sentencing enhancement, no rule of law established 

in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, is applicable to his 

sentence. 
5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED