United States of America v. Shaquan Hines, a/k/a Shy Money, a/k/a Shy Quan, a/k/a Shy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAQUAN HINES, a/k/a Shy Money, a/k/a Shy Quan, a/k/a Shy,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-4936
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LONNIE LEON JACOBS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie,
District Judge. (3:10-cr-01160-CMC-2; 3:10-cr-01160-CMC-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 11, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scarlet B. Moore, Greenville, South Carolina; Timothy K.
Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellants. John David Rowell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Shaquan Hines and
Lonnie Leon Jacobs appeal the sentences imposed on them after
pleading guilty pursuant to written plea agreements to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine, and to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery,
respectively. Counsel for both Hines and Jacobs have submitted
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that they have divined no meritorious grounds
for appeal but requesting that the court review their clients’
guilty pleas and sentences for error. Neither Hines nor Jacobs
has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Because neither Hines nor Jacobs challenged the
validity of their guilty pleas in the district court, we review
them for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals that
the district court complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11 and committed no error warranting correction on plain
error review.
The sentences imposed upon Hines and Jacobs are also
free of error. We review a sentence for reasonableness,
applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, we ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, “such

-- 3 of 5 --

4
as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)] factors, selecting
a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. If no procedural
error was committed, we review the sentence for substantive
reasonableness, taking into account the “totality of the
circumstances.” Id. In this respect, “an appellate court must
defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence only if it
is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the
choice of the appellate court.” United States v. Evans, 526
F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). A
sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines
range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Allen, 491
F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007).
Our review of the record persuades us that the
sentences of both Defendants are procedurally reasonable
inasmuch as the district court properly calculated the
applicable Guidelines ranges and appropriately explained the
sentences in light of the § 3553(a) factors. The sentences were
also substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances, particularly as Hines’ sentence fell within the
applicable Guidelines range and Jacobs’ fell below it.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Hines and Jacobs, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Hines or Jacobs 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 thereof was served on Hines and Jacobs.
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

-- 5 of 5 --