UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT ANTHONY FITZGERALD LATHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:15-cr-00228-DKC-8)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Appellant. Collin Francis Delaney, Special Assistant United 

States Attorney, Thomas Patrick Windom, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Anthony Fitzgerald Lathan appeals his sentence of 42 

months of imprisonment for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning whether the sentence imposed by the district court was 

reasonable and whether the Government breached the plea agreement 

by failing to recommend a reasonable sentence. Lathan has filed 

a pro se supplemental brief contending that his sentence was 

unreasonable, counsel provided ineffective assistance, and he was 

responsible for losses of no more than $100,000. 

We review Lathan’s sentence for reasonableness “under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. 

McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review entails appellate 

consideration of both the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume 

that a sentence imposed within the properly calculated Sentencing 

Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 

597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an 
3

opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 

18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factors, selected a sentence not based on 

clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explained the chosen 

sentence. Furthermore, Lathan’s sentence of 42 months was within 

the Guidelines range. Therefore, we conclude that Lathan’s 

sentence is reasonable. Similarly, we conclude the Government did 

not breach the plea agreement, as it recommended a sentence of 46 

months, within the Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months of 

imprisonment.

Next, a prisoner “may raise a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if and only if 

it conclusively appears from the record that counsel did not 

provide effective assistance.” United States v. Galloway, 749 

F.3d 238, 241 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration and ellipsis omitted). 

Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance claims should be 

raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in 

order to permit sufficient development of the record. United 

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because 

the record here does not conclusively establish the alleged grounds 

for Lathan’s claim, Lathan does not meet this demanding standard. 

This claim should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. 

Finally, Lathan’s guilty plea forecloses his claim that he 

was responsible for less than $100,000 in losses. See United 

States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[A] guilty 
4

plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects, 

including the right to contest the factual merits of the charges.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

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 Lathan, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. 

If Lathan 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 Lathan.

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