UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES L. DEAN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:09-cr-00893-HFF-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James L. Dean pled guilty to conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court 

sentenced him to eighty-seven months imprisonment. Dean’s 

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are 

no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Dean’s 

sentence was reasonable. Dean was advised of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, 

this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. 

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the 

transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the 

district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Dean’s 

guilty plea. The court ensured that Dean understood the charge 

against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he entered 

his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea was 

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

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, we affirm Dean’s conviction.

We have also reviewed Dean’s sentence and determined 

that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed 
3

was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 

2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural 

steps in sentencing Dean, appropriately treated the sentencing 

guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the 

applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 

193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of 

reasonableness to within guidelines sentence).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Dean, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Dean 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 Dean. 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