UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4061

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY DAVIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:12-cr-00331-CMC-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 11, 2013

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Davis, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district 

court sentenced Davis to 180 months in prison, the mandatory 

minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). On 

appeal, counsel for Davis filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court conducted an adequate plea colloquy and whether 

Davis’ sentence is reasonable. Davis has not filed a 

supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so.

We affirm. 

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, 

through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant 

of, and determine that the defendant understands, the nature of 

the charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum 

penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various 

rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(1). The district court also must ensure that the 

defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient 

factual basis, and did not result from force or threats. Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). “In reviewing the adequacy of 

compliance with Rule 11, this [c]ourt should accord deference to 
3

the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the 

mandated colloquy with the defendant.” United States v. 

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

Because Davis did not move the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Rule 11 hearing are 

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

517, 525–26 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Davis] 

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and 

that the error affected his substantial rights.” United 

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if 

Davis satisfies these requirements, we retain discretion to 

correct the error, “which we should not exercise unless the 

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and brackets omitted). Our review of the record leads us 

to conclude that the district court conducted a thorough 

colloquy, ensuring that Davis’ plea was knowing and voluntary 

and supported by an adequate factual basis.

At sentencing, Davis objected to his designation as an 

armed career criminal based on the fact that he was convicted of 

two of the predicate offenses on the same day. However, the 

crimes for which he was convicted were “committed on occasions 

different from one another,” arising out of “separate and 

distinct criminal episode[s],” such that the district court 
4

properly overruled the objection. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); United 

States v. Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332, 335 (4th Cir. 1995). 

Moreover, the district court adequately explained the chosen 

sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Our review of the record therefore leads us to 

conclude that Davis’ within-Guidelines sentence was neither 

procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Mendoza–

Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

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

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

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

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Davis 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 Davis.

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