UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4740

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DANIEL RAY BUIE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(4:08-cr-00964-TLW-1)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 5, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Ray Buie pled guilty to possession with intent 

to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm during 

the commission of a drug trafficking offense. The district 

court sentenced him to 192 months’ imprisonment. Buie’s counsel 

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the 

district court fully complied with the requirements of Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Buie’s guilty plea. 

Buie was informed of the right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we 

affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, 

this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to 

Rule 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the transcript of 

the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the district court 

fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Buie’s guilty plea. 

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th 

Cir. 1991). Buie was informed of the elements of the charges 

against him, the rights he gave up by pleading guilty, and the 

mandatory minimum and the maximum penalties he faced. The court 

determined that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea 
3

and that Buie’s plea was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we 

affirm Buie’s convictions.

We have reviewed Buie’s sentence and conclude that it 

was properly calculated and is reasonable. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Llamas, 599 

F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the 

necessary procedural steps in sentencing Buie, properly 

calculated and considered the applicable guidelines range,

appropriately treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory, 

and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in 

relation to Buie’s criminal conduct and his individual 

circumstances. On the Government’s motion, the court granted a 

downward departure to 192 months based on Buie’s substantial 

assistance. We conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in determining Buie’s sentence and that the 

sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Buie’s convictions and sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Buie, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Buie 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 
4

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

was served on Buie. 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