United States v. Shamika Clinkscale, 4th Cir. (2014)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
SHAMIKA CHANTAY CLINKSCALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00373-WO-3)
Submitted:
November 20, 2014
Decided:
November 26, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamika Chantay Clinkscale appeals her conviction and
thirty-month
possession
sentence
of
stolen
imposed
following
firearms,
922(j) and 2 (2012).
in
her
guilty
violation
of
plea
18
to
U.S.C.
On appeal, Clinkscales counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967),
appeal
asserting
but
that
there
questioning
are
whether
no
meritorious
Clinkscales
issues
guilty
plea
for
was
knowing and voluntary and whether her sentence is reasonable.

Clinkscale
was
notified
of
her
right
supplemental brief but has not done so.

declined to file a response brief.
to
file
pro
se
The Government has
Finding no error, we affirm.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must

conduct a colloquy with the defendant in which it informs the
defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the
nature
of
the
charges
to
which
she
is
pleading
guilty,
any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalties she faces, and

the rights she is relinquishing by pleading guilty.
Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116

(4th Cir. 1991).
The court must ensure that the defendants
plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent

factual basis.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3).
Because Clinkscale did not move to withdraw her guilty

plea or otherwise identify in the district court any error in
2
the
plea
proceedings,
we
colloquy for plain error.

337,
342
(4th
otherwise,
complied
Cir.
in
the
with
the
review
the
adequacy
of
the
plea
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
2009).
plea
We
discern
colloquy.
requirements
no
Rather,
of
Rule
error,
the
11,
plain
court
or
fully
ensuring
that
Clinkscales plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an

independent factual basis.
We therefore conclude her guilty
plea is valid and enforceable.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

district
including
court
committed
improper
no
Gall
v.
United
We must first ensure that the

significant
calculation
of
the
procedural
error,
Guidelines
range,
insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012)

factors,
and
inadequate
explanation
of
the
sentence
imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
575 (4th Cir. 2010).
If we find no procedural error, we examine
the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality

of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The sentence
imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

satisfy the goals of sentencing.
presume
that
Clinkscales
substantively reasonable.
289 (4th Cir. 2012).
See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
within-Guidelines
sentence
We
is
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,
Clinkscale bears the burden to rebut the

3
presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable

when measured against the 3553(a) factors.
Montes-Pineda,
445
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
United States v.
Cir.
2006)
(internal
quotation marks omitted).

We conclude Clinkscales sentence is reasonable.
district
court
correctly
calculated
Clinkscales
The
Guidelines
range and considered that range and the parties arguments in

determining
the
explanation
of
sentence.
the
3553(a) factors.
presumption
of
The
sentence
court
it
provided
imposed,
grounded
detailed
in
the
Moreover, Clinkscale has not rebutted the
reasonableness
accorded
her
within-Guidelines
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Clinkscales conviction and sentence.
This
court requires that counsel inform Clinkscale, in writing, of

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,
review.
but
If
counsel
Clinkscale
believes
requests
that
such
that
a
petition
petition
would
be
be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation.
Counsels motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Clinkscale.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
4
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

United States v. Shamika Clinkscale, 4th Cir. (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Shamika Clinkscale, 4th Cir. (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Shamika Clinkscale, 4th Cir. (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

November 20, 2014

November 26, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Rubain, QUANDER & RUBAIN, P.A., Winston-Salem, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

922(j) and 2 (2012).

On appeal, Clinkscales counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

knowing and voluntary and whether her sentence is reasonable.

supplemental brief but has not done so.

The Government has

Finding no error, we affirm.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must

mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalties she faces, and

Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116

The court must ensure that the defendants

plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3).

Because Clinkscale did not move to withdraw her guilty

colloquy for plain error.

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d

Clinkscales plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an

We therefore conclude her guilty

plea is valid and enforceable.

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

We must first ensure that the

insufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2012)

If we find no procedural error, we examine

the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the totality

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

imposed must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278,

Clinkscale bears the burden to rebut the

presumption by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable

quotation marks omitted).

range and considered that range and the parties arguments in

Moreover, Clinkscale has not rebutted the

court requires that counsel inform Clinkscale, in writing, of

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

Counsels motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Clinkscale.

You might also like