UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDRE MARQUIS BRADLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:10-cr-00088-TLW-1)

Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: October 12, 2011

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Arthur Bradley 

Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre Marquis Bradley pled guilty in accordance with a 

written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams 

or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). He was 

sentenced to 170 months in prison. Bradley now appeals. His 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that there are 

no meritorious issues for appeal. Bradley was advised of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such 

a brief. We affirm.

Bradley first contends that the district court failed 

to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Because Bradley did not 

move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we 

review the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th Cir. 2002). After 

thoroughly reviewing the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we 

discern no plain error. 

Bradley also contends that his sentence is 

unreasonable. At sentencing, the district court determined that 

Bradley’s total offense level was 34, he was in criminal history 

category VI, and his resulting advisory Guidelines range was 

262-327 months. The court granted the United States’ motion for 

downward departure based on substantial assistance and departed 

downward four levels. This reduced Bradley’s Guidelines range 
3

to 168-210 months. After hearing argument from counsel and 

Bradley’s allocution, the court sentenced Bradley to 170 months 

in prison. In imposing the sentence, the court considered 

relevant 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West Supp. 2011) factors, 

Bradley’s substantial assistance to the United States, and the 

fact that Bradley had never served a significant term of 

imprisonment despite having several felony convictions. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2008). The first step in this review requires us to 

ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 

(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include “failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the 

Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

In explaining the selected sentence, the district 

court “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts 

presented,” by applying “the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the 

specific circumstances of the case before it.” United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 
4

marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also “state in open 

court the particular reasons supporting its chosen sentence” and 

“set forth enough to satisfy” us that it has “considered the 

parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] 

own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “If, and only if, we find the sentence 

procedurally reasonable can we consider” its substantive 

reasonableness. Id.

We conclude that Bradley’s sentence is procedurally 

and substantively reasonable. The court properly calculated the 

Guidelines range, applied pertinent § 3553(a) factors, 

considered the arguments of counsel and Bradley’s allocution, 

and sufficiently explained the variant sentence. See Evans, 526 

F.3d at 161.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that 

counsel inform Bradley, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Bradley 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 of the motion was served 

on Bradley.
5

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