UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC EZEKIAL HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Carl Johnson,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00328-NCT-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY, PC, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Ezekial Hutchinson appeals his conviction and 43-month 

sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, counsel for Hutchinson 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal but addressing the validity of Hutchinson’s plea and 

sentence. Hutchinson did not file a supplemental pro se brief, 

and the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders

brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through 

colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and 

determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which 

the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various 

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

11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 

1991). 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, threats, or promises not 

contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), 

(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. We conclude that the district 

court correctly found Hutchinson’s plea knowing and voluntary 

and that Hutchinson has not established plain error in his Rule 

11 hearing. 
3

Turning to Hutchinson’s sentence, we review a sentence for 

procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying an 

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

38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court did 

not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing 

to properly calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines 

range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) 

sentencing factors, or failing to adequately explain the 

sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, 

we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. We 

presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range, as here, is substantively reasonable. United 

States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). 

Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive 

sentencing error by the district court. Without objection, the 

district court correctly calculated Hutchinson’s offense level, 

criminal history, and advisory Guidelines range. The court 

afforded the parties an adequate opportunity to present 

arguments concerning the appropriate sentence and provided 

Hutchinson an opportunity to allocute. Finally, the court 

provided an adequate, individualized explanation for the 

within-Guidelines sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We 
4

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Hutchinson, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Hutchinson 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 Hutchinson. 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