US v. Qizhu Sun, No. 12-4165 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. QIZHU SUN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00085-CCE-4) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Wallace, THE WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Qizhu Sun appeals from his convictions and 46-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court s acceptance of Sun s guilty plea was in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether Sun was properly sentenced. Sun was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, because Sun did not challenge the validity of his guilty plea in the district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals that the district court complied with the dictates of Rule 11 and committed no error warranting correction on plain error review. Second, we have reviewed Sun s sentence and conclude that it was reasonable. district both procedurally and substantively Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court correctly calculated Sun s Guidelines The range, without objection; heard argument on the appropriate sentence; and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. granted the Government s request 2 for a downward The court departure under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ยง 5K1.1 (2011) based on Sun s reasoning for substantial the assistance departure. Sun s and sentence gave was adequate below the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, and Sun has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his See United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th sentence. Cir. 2012). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sun s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Sun, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sun requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this and materials legal before for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Sun. facts court We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
