CORRECTED OPINION

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN TOWNSEND, a/k/a Kojack,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(4:11-cr-00417-TLW-12)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Corrected Opinion Filed: January 31, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth V. Tilley, THE LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH VAUGHN TILLEY, 

PC, Myrtle Beach, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Calvin Townsend pled guilty to conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 

twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). He received a 210-

month sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following 

issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Townsend’s guilty plea; and (2) 

whether the sentence imposed by the district court is 

reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Townsend 

has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government declined to 

file a response. We affirm. 

Because Townsend did not move to withdraw his plea, we 

review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. 

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no 

error, as the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when 

accepting Townsend’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary, 

we therefore find that Townsend’s plea was knowing and 

voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. See United 

States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Next we review Townsend’s sentence for reasonableness 

using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 
3

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 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 improperly 

calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to 

consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors, 

sentencing using clearly erroneous facts, or failing to 

adequately explain the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if 

we find a sentence procedurally reasonable may we consider its 

substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude 

that Townsend’s within-Guidelines sentence was either 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable. See United States 

v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court 

presumes sentence within applicable Guidelines range to be 

reasonable), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Townsend’s conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Townsend, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Townsend 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 Townsend. 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