UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEYO JENNINGS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00595-PMD-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 29, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keyo Jennings pled guilty to one count of being a 

felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and was sentenced to 

120 months in prison. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance 

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

after a review of the record, he has found no meritorious 

grounds for appeal. The Anders brief nonetheless indicates that 

the issues raised by the appeal include whether: (i) the 

district court erred when it found that Jennings possessed the 

subject firearm in connection with another felony offense; (ii) 

the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 when it 

accepted Jennings’ guilty plea; and (iii) Jennings’ 120-month 

sentence is reasonable. Jennings has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief raising several issues, including whether the 

district court correctly calculated his Guidelines range. The 

Government has declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no

error, we affirm.

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

we review the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11 

for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 

(4th Cir. 2002). A review of Jennings’ Rule 11 hearing reveals 

that the district court complied with Rule 11’s requirements. 

Jennings’ plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 
3

made, with full knowledge of the consequences attendant to his 

guilty plea. We therefore find that no plain error occurred and 

affirm Jennings’ conviction.

We also affirm Jennings’ sentence. Jennings’ 

presentence investigation report properly placed him in a 

category V criminal history and attributed him with a total 

offense level of twenty-five, yielding a Guidelines range of 100 

to 125 months in prison.1

At sentencing, the district court afforded counsel an 

opportunity to argue regarding an appropriate sentence, afforded 

Jennings an opportunity to allocute, considered the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors before imposing Jennings’ sentence, and 

adequately explained its rationale for imposing Jennings’ 

particular sentence. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 

330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the district court must 

 Because the statutory maximum sentence 

applicable to Jennings’ conviction was ten years, however, 

Jennings’ Guidelines range was appropriately calculated at 100 

to 120 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).

 1 We conclude that the district court correctly applied the 

four-level enhancement to Jennings’ offense level, pursuant to 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2K2.1(b)(6) (2008), 

based on the Government’s evidence that Jennings possessed the 

firearm and ammunition in connection with his commission of 

another felony offense. Jennings’ assertion to the contrary, 

the district court appropriately granted Jennings a three-level 

reduction in his offence level based on his acceptance of 

responsibility, in accordance with USSG § 3E1.1 (2008). 
4

“place on the record an individualized assessment based on the 

particular facts of the case before it” and that the 

“individualized assessment . . . must provide a rationale 

tailored to the particular case at hand and [be] adequate to 

permit meaningful appellate review”) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). Because this court presumes Jennings’ 

within-Guidelines sentence is correct, and since Jennings has 

presented no evidence to rebut this presumption, we affirm 

Jennings’ 120-month sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491 

F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.2

 2 We have considered the remaining arguments raised by 

Jennings in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be 

without merit. 

 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Jennings, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Jennings 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 Jennings. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
5

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED