UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TARIK KAWENDO WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (8:05-cr-00399-HMH)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 28, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*The probation officer calculated a sentencing guideline range

applicable to Washington of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment founded

on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of

VI, as a career offender. After careful consideration of the facts

and evidence, the district court determined that one of

Washington’s predicate career offender convictions overstated his

criminal history, and recalculated his offense level to 27 and his

criminal history category to IV, with an attendant adjusted

guideline range of 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tarik Kawendo Washington pled guilty to felon in

possession of a firearm (count 1), felon in possession of a firearm

with an obliterated serial number (count 2), and possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base (count 3), in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e); 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B) (2000);

and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000), respectively. The

district court sentenced Washington to 100 months’ imprisonment on

counts 1 and 3, and 60 months’ imprisonment on count 2, all to be

served concurrently, three years of supervised release on each of

counts 1, 2, and 3, to be served concurrently, and ordered payment

of a $300 statutory assessment.* Washington’s counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but

questioning whether the district court complied with the

requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Washington’s plea.

Washington was given an opportunity to file a supplemental pro se

brief, but has failed to do so.
- 3 -

Washington did not move in the district court to withdraw

his guilty plea, therefore his challenge to the adequacy of the

Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

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

reviewed the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and find no plain

error in the district court’s acceptance of Washington’s guilty

plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.

1991).

Moreover, we find that the district court properly

consulted the Guidelines and considered them when sentencing

Washington, that it made all the factual findings appropriate for

that determination, considered the sentencing range along with the

other factors described in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.

2005), and imposed a sentence that was “within the statutorily

prescribed range and . . . reasonable.” United States v. Hughes,

401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). The district court properly

sentenced Washington in compliance with the mandates of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Washington’s sentence

was reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Washington’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
- 4 -

further review. If the client 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 the client.

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