UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4631

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN LYNN LATTAKER, a/k/a Edward Miller, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. 

Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00094-RJC-1) 

Submitted: December 23, 2008 Decided: January 14, 2009 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mark P. Foster, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF MARK FOSTER, PC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

John Lynn Lattaker pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to two counts of robbery affecting interstate 

commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), one count of 

brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and one count of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) 

(2006). As part of the plea agreement, Lattaker waived his 

right to challenge his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, 

except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective 

assistance of counsel. The district court sentenced Lattaker to 

360 months’ imprisonment. Lattaker’s counsel has filed a brief 

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

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lattaker filed 

a pro se supplemental brief raising several issues. The 

Government does not seek to enforce the plea agreement’s appeal 

waiver.∗ Finding no error, we affirm. 

 ∗

 Because the Government has not sought to enforce 

Lattaker’s appellate waiver, we need not consider whether the 

waiver is dispositive of this appeal. See United States v. 

Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to 

consider an appeal waiver that arguably barred the appeal on one 

issue because the Government had expressly elected not to argue 

waiver with regard to that issue); cf. United States v. Blick, 

408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005) (enforcing a plea 

agreement’s appeal waiver where the Government sought 

enforcement, the issues raised fell within the waiver’s scope, 

(Continued) 

2 
 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

review. Our review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads 

us to conclude that the district court substantially complied 

with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Lattaker’s 

guilty plea and that the court’s omissions did not affect 

Lattaker’s substantial rights. Critically, the transcript 

reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported 

by an independent factual basis and that Lattaker entered the 

plea knowingly and voluntarily with an understanding of the 

consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 

119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Turning to Lattaker’s sentence, we review a criminal 

sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594-97 (2007); 

United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008). We must 

first determine whether the district court committed any 

“significant procedural error.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, 

and may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence 

within the Guidelines range. Go, 517 F.3d at 218. We find that 

 

and no claim was present that the Government breached its 

obligations under the plea agreement). 

3 
4 

the district court’s imposition of a 360-month sentence, a 

sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range, was 

reasonable. We find further that none of the issues in 

Lattaker’s pro se supplemental brief raise meritorious issues 

for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of 

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

further review. If the client requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be 

frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw 

from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of 

the motion was served on the client. 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