United States of America v. Randal Antoine

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDAL ANTOINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00827-CMC-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Nathan S.
Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Randal Antoine appeals his conviction and ninety-six-
month sentence imposed by the district court following a guilty
plea to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2006), and
falsely representing a social security number, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006). Antoine’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California
Because Antoine did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing for plain error.
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues
for appeal, but questioning whether Antoine’s guilty plea was
valid and whether the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Antoine
was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but
did not file one. We affirm.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d
517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Antoine]
must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and
that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States
v. Muhammad
We also conclude that Antoine’s sentence is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. We review a sentence
, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Our review of
the record leads us to conclude that the district court
substantially complied with Rule 11 and that Antoine’s guilty
plea was knowing and voluntary.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The first step in this review requires us to ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural
error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir.
2008). Significant procedural errors include “‘failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range’” or
“‘failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.’” United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552
U.S. at 51). We then consider the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence, taking into account the totality of the
circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212,
216 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence within the guidelines range is
accorded an appellate presumption of reasonableness. Rita v.
United States
In accordance with
, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007). We have reviewed
the record and conclude that Antoine’s within-guidelines
sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
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 Antoine in writing of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Antoine 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

-- 3 of 4 --

4
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Antoine. 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

-- 4 of 4 --