United States of America v. Darrell Antoine Slade

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL ANTOINE SLADE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00081-WO-1)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis,
Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Antoine Slade appeals his conviction and 210-
month sentence following a plea of guilty to one count of
carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006). In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), Slade’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether
Slade’s prior convictions properly qualified him for sentencing
as a career offender. Slade’s supplemental pro se brief also
challenges his career offender classification. Having fully
reviewed the record, we affirm.
First, the district court fully complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 when accepting Slade’s plea. Our review of the
record convinces us that Slade’s plea was knowing and voluntary
and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States
v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
Therefore we discern no error in the district court’s acceptance
of Slade’s guilty plea.
Considering Slade’s sentence, we review for
reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. 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

-- 2 of 4 --

3
F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include
improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, sentencing on clearly
erroneous facts, “or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if we find a
sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th
Cir. 2009).
As counsel notes, the district court did not err in
concluding that Slade qualified as a career offender pursuant to
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1(a) (2010).
Under our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237
(4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), Slade’s prior North Carolina
convictions were properly considered felonies for the purposes
of USSG § 4B1.1(a). Id. at 240-46. Because Slade’s sentence
was otherwise procedurally and substantively reasonable, we find
no error in its imposition.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Slade’s conviction and sentence. This court requires
that counsel inform Slade, in writing, of his right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Slade requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

-- 3 of 4 --

4
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Slade. 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 --