United States of America v. ALEX BAXTER ODOM, JR., a/k/a Turbo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEX BAXTER ODOM, JR., a/k/a Turbo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00053-CCE-11)
Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: November 7, 2016
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alex Baxter Odom, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with
intent to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Odom to 41 months’
imprisonment. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Odom’s counsel has filed a brief certifying there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but generally questioning
the adequacy of the plea hearing and the reasonableness of the
sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Odom has
failed to file a pro se brief. We affirm the district court’s
judgment.
Because Odom did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we
review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain
error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir.
2014). 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 relinquishing by
pleading guilty, the charge to which he is pleading, and the
maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the plea was
voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not
contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and

-- 2 of 4 --

3
“that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(3). Our review of the record confirms that the district
court fully complied with Rule 11.
We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for
both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In
determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the
district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If a sentence is free of
“significant procedural error,” then we review it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. “Any sentence that is within
or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th
Cir. 2014).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Odom’s
sentence is procedurally sound. While Odom argued for a below-
Guidelines sentence and suggested a probationary sentence might
be appropriate, we conclude that his arguments in support fail

-- 3 of 4 --

4
to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his
below-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Odom, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Odom 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 Odom.
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

-- 4 of 4 --