Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4957
No. 14-4027
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (4:13-cr-00321-RBH-2; 4:13-cr-00321-RBH-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant
Khiry
Pringle
to
their
and
written
Otis
plea
Samuel,
agreements,
Jr.,
Akeema
(collectively,
received
assistance,
see
both
U.S.
downward
departure
Sentencing
for
Guidelines
his
Manual
In Samuels
USSG
5K1.1
substantial
assistance
reduction,
and
These appeals
timely followed.
Defendants attorneys have filed a consolidated brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring
that
there
review
of
are
no
meritorious
Defendants
appellate
convictions
3
and
issues
but
Pringles
seeking
sentence.
sentence
because
it
was
the
result
of
the
4027).
criminal
judgment
in
Samuels
case
(Appeal
No.
14-
Samuels
appeal
Further,
we
of
grant
his
sentence
Samuels
for
motion
lack
to
of
jurisdiction.
withdraw
his
pro
se
supplemental brief.
Because
neither
Pringle
nor
Samuel
moved
in
the
525
Defendants
(4th
Cir.
must
2002).
establish
To
that
prevail
an
under
error
this
occurred,
standard,
that
this
States
v.
Massenburg,
564
F.3d
337,
34243
(4th
Cir.
with
the
mandates
4
of
Rule
11,
ensuring
that
Defendants
guilty
pleas
were
knowing
and
voluntary
and
We therefore affirm
Defendants convictions.
We
review
Pringles
below-Guidelines
sentence
for
Gall
This review
Id. at 51.
We first assess
of
reasonableness
the
of
the
circumstances
to
sentence,
see
examin[ing]
whether
the
the
sentencing
United
We
find
no
error
in
the
district
courts
designation,
the
opportunities
5
the
court
provided
through
3553(a)s
every
subsection,
particularly
when
v.
Susi,
674
F.3d
278,
289
(4th
Cir.
2012),
and
we
of
the
Guidelines,
or
(3)
is
greater
than
the
United States v.
None of these
exceptions
less
apply
here.
Samuels
sentence
was
than
the
imposed
Sentencing
agreement
as
result
Guidelines
not
Guidelines.
on
of
an
because
the
incorrect
it
was
district
application
based
courts
on
the
of
the
parties
calculation
of
the
Cir. 2011); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th
Cir. 2005).
accordance
with
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
We
therefore
affirm
the
criminal
judgment
against
Samuels
sentence.
Finally,
we
grant
Samuels
motion
to
the
Supreme
review.
If
either
Court
of
requests
the
that
United
a
States
petition
be
for
further
filed,
but
may
move
representation.
was
served
on
in
this
Court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
client.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
No. 13-4957 AFFIRMED
No. 14-4027 AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART