UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO LENARD BUEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00062-NCT-1)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Quander, Jr., QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Lenard Buey pled guilty in accordance with a 

written plea agreement to distribution of cocaine base, 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Buey was sentenced to 190 months for 

the drug offense and sixty months, consecutive, for the firearm 

offense. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in 

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

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Buey 

was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, 

but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

Our review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11 proceeding discloses that the district court fully complied 

with the Rule. The record supports the district court’s finding 

that Buey entered a knowing and voluntary plea and that there 

was a factual basis for the plea. 

Further, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court correctly calculated 

Buey’s Guidelines range, considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors, and sufficiently explained the 

variance sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 

(4th Cir. 2010). With respect to the court’s explanation of the 
3

sentence, the court stated that it would vary below the 

Guidelines range of 262-327 months for several reasons, 

including Buey’s early cooperation with the United States, the 

statements at sentencing by Buey and his mother, and Buey’s 

documented, exemplary performance of his prison job. The 

sentence accordingly is free of procedural error. Our review of 

the record convinces us, based on the totality of the 

circumstances, that the sentence is similarly free of 

substantive error. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion 

in imposing the selected sentence. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

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

This Court requires that counsel inform Buey, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Buey 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 of the 

motion was served on Buey. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED