UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMARIO CORTEZ GLADDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00402-WO-1)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demario Cortez Gladden appeals his conviction and sentence of 

84 months of imprisonment for brandishing a firearm in relation to 

a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (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. 

Gladden has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the 

evidence was insufficient to convict him and that law enforcement 

officials committed entrapment. We affirm.

A guilty plea is valid where the defendant voluntarily, 

knowingly, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient 

awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” 

United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Before accepting a guilty 

plea, a district court must ensure that the plea is knowing, 

voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th 

Cir. 1991).

Because Gladden neither raised an objection during the Rule 

11 proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district 

court, we review his Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. United 

States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of 

the record reveals that the district court fully complied with 
3

Rule 11 in accepting Gladden’s guilty plea after a thorough 

hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that his plea was knowing and 

voluntary, see Fisher, 711 F.3d at 464, and thus “final and 

binding,” see United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th 

Cir. 1992) (en banc).

We review Gladden’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 court 

properly calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines 

as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the parties an 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, Gladden’s sentence of 84 months was exactly as 

recommended by the Guidelines and was the statutory mandatory 

minimum sentence. Therefore, we conclude that Gladden’s sentence 

is reasonable.
4

Gladden’s guilty plea forecloses his claims of insufficient 

evidence and entrapment. See United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 

489, 490 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[A] guilty 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 Gladden’s conviction and sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Gladden, in writing, of the right to 

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

If Gladden 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 Gladden.

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