UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RODNEY EARL CANNADY, a/k/a Camp Earl, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00258-D-1) 

Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronald Cohen, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. George 

E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Certiorari dismissed, August 3, 2010
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Cannady pled guilty to one count of possession with 

intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and a 

quantity of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2006). The district court imposed a sentence of 384 months in 

prison, and Cannady timely appealed. We affirm. 

On appeal, Cannady argues that his guilty plea should be 

vacated because parts of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 colloquy were 

conducted jointly with several other defendants. Because 

Cannady did not seek to withdraw his plea or object to the 

proceeding, this claim is reviewed for plain error. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2005). To 

succeed on this claim, Cannady must demonstrate: (1) there was 

error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his 

substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-

34 (1993); United States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th 

Cir. 2007). Cannady’s claim is contradicted by the record. The 

district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that 

ensured that Cannady’s plea was knowing and voluntary. 

Cannady also argues that his sentence was excessive. This 

court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). 

This review requires appellate consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. 
3

After determining whether the district court properly calculated 

the defendant’s advisory guidelines range, this court must 

consider whether the district court considered the factors set 

out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), analyzed any arguments presented by 

the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. 

Id. 

Here the district court imposed a sentence that was within 

the properly calculated advisory guidelines range of 360 months 

to life, and the record reveals that the court considered the 

required statutory factors. We conclude the district court

imposed a reasonable sentence. 

Cannady has made a motion to file a pro se supplemental 

brief in this court. We grant the motion, but find that the 

issue he raises, that police officers violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights, is foreclosed by his unconditional plea of 

guilty. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266-67 (1973).

Because we find that the district court conducted an 

appropriate and thorough Rule 11 colloquy ensuring a voluntary 

guilty plea and the sentence it imposed on Cannady was 

reasonable, we affirm Cannady’s conviction and sentence. 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