UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY KALVIN BRADY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00364-JAB-7)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Kalvin Brady appeals the 98-month sentence imposed 

upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute cocaine 

hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 

(2012). On appeal, Brady’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning 

whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in 

accepting Brady’s guilty plea and whether the sentence is 

reasonable. Brady has not filed a supplemental pro se brief 

despite being advised of his right to do so. Finding no 

meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.

First, Brady generally questions whether the district court 

erred in accepting his guilty plea. Because Brady did not move 

to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise preserve a claim of 

Rule 11 error, we review for plain error. United States v. 

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

plea hearing reveals that the district court substantially 

complied with Rule 11 in conducting the plea colloquy, thus 

ensuring that Brady’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported 

by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b).

Brady next questions the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence. We review a sentence’s 

reasonableness for abuse of discretion. United States v. 
3

Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 527-28 (4th Cir. 2014). We first review 

for procedural error, such as improper calculation of the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, failure to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, selection of a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, id. at 528, or failure to adequately 

explain the sentence, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). Absent any procedural error, we examine the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence under “the totality of the 

circumstances.” Id. Sentences within a properly calculated 

Guidelines range are presumed reasonable, and this presumption

“can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th 

Cir. 2014). We conclude that Brady’s sentence is procedurally 

reasonable and that Brady has not overcome the presumption of 

substantive reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines-range 

sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

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 Brady, in writing, of 

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

further review. If Brady requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 
4

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

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

was served on Brady. 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