United States of America v. Robert Antonio Parker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ANTONIO PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cr-00116-D-23)
Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 30, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marilyn G. Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Antonio Parker appeals his conviction and 137-month sentence after
pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity
of cocaine and 28 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846
(2012). Parker’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues, but questioning whether (1) Parker’s
guilty plea was conducted in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and (2) his sentence is
reasonable. Parker has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed
one. We affirm.
Because Parker did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we
review his Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815-16
(4th Cir. 2014). To establish plain error, an appellant “must demonstrate not only that the
district court plainly erred, but also that this error affected his substantial rights.” Id. at
816. Even if an appellant satisfies these elements, we may exercise our discretion to
correct the error only if it seriously affects “the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court
substantially complied with Rule 11 in conducting Parker’s plea colloquy, we affirm
Parker’s conviction.
Next, Parker questions whether the district court placed an inordinate weight on
Parker’s criminal history in determining his sentence. We review a criminal sentence for
both procedural and substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard,” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), and presume that a sentence

-- 2 of 3 --

3
imposed within a properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable,
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). This presumption may be
rebutted only with a showing “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against
the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir.
2014). The district court correctly calculated Parker’s advisory Guidelines range as 110
to 137 months’ imprisonment, heard arguments from counsel, provided Parker an
opportunity to allocute, considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and adequately
explained the basis for the sentence imposed at the top of the Guidelines range. Parker
has not made the showing necessary to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded
to this sentence.
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 district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Parker, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parker 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 Parker. 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 --