UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUANDON HA’SON WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00224-WO-1) Submitted: August 30, 2019 Decided: September 23, 2019 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl D. Andrews, HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quandon H. Wilson appeals his convictions and 108-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 2 (2012), and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2 (2012). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asking that this court conduct its independent examination pursuant to Anders. Wilson was informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. We affirm. Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which it informs the defendant of the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty, the statutory penalties he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing as a result of the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). Furthermore, the district court must determine that the defendant’s guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Wilson neither raised an objection during the Rule 11 proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review his Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013) (discussing standard of review). In this case, the district court substantially complied with the Rule 11 requirements, failing only to inform Wilson of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(O). Because the relevant information appeared in Wilson’s 2 plea agreement and he is a natural born United States citizen, his substantial rights were not affected. Moreover, the district court correctly found that Wilson’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. Thus, we sustain Wilson’s convictions. “We review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). In this case, the district court properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, gave the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals