Court Opinion

ID: 9364998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:31.224029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.923899
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4409      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4409

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DAVID JAMES ALLISON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:21-cr-00436-BHH-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Christopher R. Geel, GEEL LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Dean Secor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4409      Doc: 22          Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               David James Allison pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea

        agreement, to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e).

        The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Allison to 360 months’

        imprisonment, followed by lifetime supervised release. On appeal, Allison’s counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Allison’s guilty plea is valid and

        whether the sentence is reasonable. Allison did not file a pro se brief after being notified

        of his right to do so. The Government has not responded to the Anders brief or moved

        to enforce the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. We affirm in part and

        dismiss in part.

               Because Allison did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object to the plea

        hearing in the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d

        812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). A guilty plea is valid if the defendant knowingly, voluntarily,

        and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and

        likely consequences.” United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts

        look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, granting the defendant’s solemn

        declaration of guilt a presumption of truthfulness.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d

        263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

               Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in

        which it informs the defendant of, and determines he understands, the rights he is

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4409       Doc: 22          Filed: 01/19/2023        Pg: 3 of 4

        relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the maximum

        and any mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The court also

        must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not

        contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that there is a factual basis

        for the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

        Allison’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis,

        and the district court did not plainly err by accepting it.

               As to Allison’s sentence, we generally review criminal sentences for both

        procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” United States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). However, “a sentence imposed pursuant to the terms of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)

        plea agreement may only be reviewed if it is unlawful or expressly based on the United

        States Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.

        2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review Allison’s sentence because the district

        court sentenced Allison in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the sentence

        is not unlawful, and the sentence is not based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. We

        therefore dismiss Allison’s appeal of his sentence.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore dismiss Allison’s appeal as to the

        reasonableness of his sentence and affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment. This

        court requires that counsel inform Allison, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Allison requests that a petition be filed,

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4409         Doc: 22      Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        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 Allison.

               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 IN PART,
                                                                              DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4