United States of America v. Jarmarphio Shantez Moose

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4391
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JARMARPHIO SHANTEZ MOOSE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-CCE-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jarmarphio Shantez Moose appeals his conviction and
120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
possessing firearms as a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Moose’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding
no meritorious issues for appeal, but citing the voluntariness
of Moose’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of his sentence.
Moose was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file
a response. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.
Before accepting Moose’s guilty plea, the district
court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, complying with the
dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Moose’s plea
was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual
basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
Cir. 1991). The court fulfilled all requisite procedural steps
in sentencing Moose, correctly calculating his Guidelines range;
considering the parties’ arguments, Moose’s allocution, and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors; and providing an
individualized assessment fully grounded in those factors. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We presume on
appeal that Moose’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable, and Moose has not met his burden to rebut this

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presumption. See United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Moose’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Moose, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Moose 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 Moose.
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

-- 3 of 3 --