UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4595

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

KEITH LAMONT ELLISON, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00030-RJC-1) 

Submitted: April 30, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

J. Darren Byers, LAW OFFICES OF J. DARREN BYERS, P.A., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Keith Lamont Ellison appeals his sentence to 180 

months in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent 

to distribute and distribution of five or more grams of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 851 

(2006), and using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) 

(2006). Ellison’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting, in his opinion, 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the 

issues of whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11 when accepting Ellison’s plea and whether his sentence is 

reasonable. Ellison was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. 

Appellate counsel first questions whether the district 

court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ellison’s 

guilty plea. Specifically, he argues that the magistrate judge 

failed to adequately inform Ellison regarding the nature of the 

charges to which he was pleading, and failed to fully inquire 

into the medications he was taking and his competency. Because 

Ellison did not move in the district court to withdraw his 

guilty plea, we review his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 

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

F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record and 

2 
find no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of 

Ellison’s guilty plea. The magistrate judge adequately informed 

Ellison concerning the nature of the charges to which he was 

pleading, and engaged in adequate inquiry to ensure that Ellison 

was competent to enter the plea. Moreover, the district court 

properly determined that Ellison understood the charges, the 

potential penalties, and the consequences of his plea, and that 

his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. 

Appellate counsel next questions whether Ellison’s 

sentence is reasonable. We review a sentence for abuse of 

discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). 

The first step in this review requires us to ensure that the 

district court committed no significant procedural error, such 

as improperly calculating the guideline range. United States 

v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 

S. Ct. 2525 (2008). We then consider the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the 

totality of the circumstances. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Ellison, and his sentence is reasonable. As appellate counsel 

concedes, Ellison was sentenced to the mandatory minimum terms 

of imprisonment under the statutes of conviction. Accordingly, 

the district court had no discretion to impose a lower sentence, 

3 
4 

see United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. 

2005), and Ellison’s sentence is per se reasonable. See United 

States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 2008). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

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 his client, in writing, 

of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for 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