UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN TOWNSEND, a/k/a Kojack,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00417-TLW-12)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth V. Tilley, THE LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH VAUGHN TILLEY, PC, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellee. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Calvin Townsend pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and

twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). He received a 210-

month sentence. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California,

(1967), asserting there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following

issues: (1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 when it accepted Townsend’s guilty plea; and (2)

whether the sentence imposed by the district court is

reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Townsend

has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government declined to

file a response.

Because Townsend did not move to withdraw his plea, we

review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v.

Martinez,

(4th Cir. 2002). Here, we find no

error, as the district court fully complied with Rule 11 when

accepting Townsend’s plea. Given no indication to the contrary,

we therefore find that Townsend’s plea was knowing and

voluntary, and, consequently, final and binding. See United

States v. Lambey,

(4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Next we review Townsend’s sentence for reasonableness

using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

2

(2007). The first step in this review requires

us to ensure that the district court committed no significant

procedural error. United States v. Evans,

(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly

calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to

consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, sentencing using

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

sentence. Gall,

. Only if we find a sentence

procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive

reasonableness. United States v. Carter,

(4th

Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude that

Townsend’s within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or

substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell,

(4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence

within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert.

denied,

(2011).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Townsend’s conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform Townsend, in writing, of the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Townsend 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 representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Townsend. 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