UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMAL PILES, a/k/a Marty, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:07-cr-00270-WDQ-8) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Arthur S. Cheslock, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. James 

Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jamal Piles, a/k/a Marty, pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court sentenced Piles to 135 

months’ imprisonment. Piles’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

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

his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel, 

however, asks this court to review the validity of Piles’ guilty 

plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. Piles has not 

filed a pro se supplemental brief and the Government has not 

filed a brief. We affirm. 

 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 charges 

to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the 

maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is 

relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The 

court also must determine whether there is a factual basis for 

the plea. Id.; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th 

Cir. 1991). The purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure 

that the plea of guilt is entered into knowingly and 

voluntarily. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002). 

 Because Piles did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is 

2 
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Piles] 

must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and 

that the error affected his substantial rights.” United 

States v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if 

Piles satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error 

remains within [the Court’s] discretion, which [the Court] 

should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Our review of the transcript reveals substantial 

compliance with the requirements of Rule 11, and we conclude 

that Piles pled guilty knowingly and voluntarily. 

 We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

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

38, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. 

Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we 

first examine the sentence for “significant procedural error,” 

including: “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) 

the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines as mandatory, 

failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, 

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or 

failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .” 

Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The Court then “‘consider[s] the 

3 
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed.’” United 

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.) (quoting Gall, 128 

S. Ct. at 597), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 476 (2008). If the 

sentence is within a properly calculated guidelines range, we 

apply a presumption of reasonableness on appellate review. See

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); 

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-

69 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness on 

appellate review for within-guidelines sentence). 

 We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not commit reversible procedural error in 

sentencing Piles, and that his within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 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 Piles, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Piles 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 Piles. 

4 
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