UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

DARNELL THOMPSON, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:08-cr-00464-HMH-1) 

Submitted: August 19, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. James D. Galyean, Assistant 

United States Attorney, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Darnell Thompson pled guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2006). The district court sentenced him to the statutory 

mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, Thompson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Thompson has also exercised 

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

 In his Anders brief, Thompson first suggests that the 

district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in 

accepting his guilty plea. This court generally assesses any 

variation from the Rule 11 requirements under a harmless error 

standard. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h). However, because Thompson 

did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, 

his claim is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. 

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed 

the record and determine that the district court fully complied 

with the requirements of Rule 11 and did not err in determining 

that Thompson’s plea was both knowing and voluntary. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in accepting his 

guilty plea. 

 Thompson next suggests that the district court erred 

in sentencing him to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 

180 months’ imprisonment. This court reviews a sentence imposed 

2 
by a district court under a deferential abuse of discretion 

standard. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 

2008). In reviewing a sentence, the appellate court must first 

ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error, such as failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007). If there are no procedural errors, then the appellate 

court considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 

Id.

 “When rendering a sentence, the district court must 

make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” 

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (internal quotations omitted) 

(emphasis in the original)). Accordingly, a sentencing court 

must apply the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the particular 

facts presented and must “state in open court” the particular 

reasons that support its chosen sentence. Id. Stating in open 

court the particular reasons for a chosen sentence requires the 

district court to set forth enough to satisfy this court that 

the district court has a reasoned basis for its decision and has 

considered the parties’ arguments. Id.

 The district court did not commit error – procedural 

or substantive – in sentencing Thompson. The district court 

properly determined that Thompson qualified for the Armed Career 

3 
Criminal enhancement and had a resulting advisory guidelines 

range of 180 months’ imprisonment. Prior to imposing sentence, 

the district court heard from defense counsel and Thompson and 

granted Thompson’s request to self-report to the Bureau of 

Prisons. The record reveals no significant procedural error by 

the district court in sentencing Thompson. Also, this court 

presumes on appeal that a sentence within a properly determined 

advisory guidelines range is substantively reasonable and 

nothing in the record rebuts that presumption here. See Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007); 

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). 

 Finally, in his pro se supplemental brief, Thompson 

raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. As the 

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance, 

Thompson’s claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. See

United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm Thompson’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Thompson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Thompson 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 

4 
5 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Thompson. 

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