UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STEVE M. SINGLETARY,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-01314-JFA-1)

Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, II, Julius Ness 

Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steve M. Singletary appeals the fifty-seven month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of being 

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1) (2006). Counsel for Singletary filed a brief in 

this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), certifying that there are no non-frivolous issues for 

appeal, but questioning whether Singletary’s guilty plea was 

valid and whether the district court imposed a reasonable 

sentence. Singletary was informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but did not do so. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Because Singletary did not move to withdraw his guilty 

plea in the district court or raise any objections to the 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, the colloquy is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). Prior to accepting a defendant’s 

guilty plea, a district court must address the defendant in open 

court and ensure he understands, among other things, the nature 

of the charge against him, the possible punishment he faces, and 

the rights he relinquishes by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(1). The court must also ensure that a sufficient factual 

basis exists to support the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), and 

that the plea is knowing and voluntary, Fed. R. Crim. P. 
3

11(b)(2). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals no 

deficiencies in the colloquy conducted by the district court. 

We conclude that the district court did not err in finding 

Singletary’s guilty plea to be valid.

Counsel next challenges the reasonableness of 

Singletary’s sentence, but does not specify any deficiencies. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). This review requires appellate consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 

Id. This court must assess whether the district court properly 

calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments 

presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the 

selected sentence. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 

(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany 

every sentence.” (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). In addition, this 

court presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly 

determined advisory Guidelines range is substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 

2007). 

We conclude that Singletary’s sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court 
4

properly calculated Singletary’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, and considered the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 

473 (4th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court based its 

sentence on its individualized assessment of the facts of the 

case. See Carter, 564 F.3d at 328. Lastly, Singletary has not 

rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is 

reasonable. Thus, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. This 

court requires that counsel inform Singletary, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Singletary 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 Singletary. 

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