UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA R. GLENN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00165-JD-1)

Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John L. Warren, III, BILL NETTLES LAW, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4440 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua R. Glenn pled guilty to conspiracy to fraudulently use means of 

identification, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). The district court sentenced Glenn 

to 100 months’ imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release, and $49,220 in restitution. On 

appeal, Glenn’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether 

Glenn’s guilty plea is valid and whether his sentence is reasonable. Although notified of 

his right to do so, Glenn has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has 

declined to file a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the 

defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the 

charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum 

possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by 

pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the 

defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not 

result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this court 

“accord[s] deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated 

colloquy with the defendant.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295 

(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Glenn did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we 

review the validity of his guilty plea for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4440 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, Glenn must establish that “(1) an error 

was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 

United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain 

error affected his substantial rights by demonstrating a reasonable probability that he would 

not have pled guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v. Sanya, 

774 F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and, 

discerning no plain error, we conclude that Glenn’s guilty plea is valid.

As for Glenn’s sentence, we review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or 

significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the 

sentence is procedurally reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and 

sufficiently explained the selected sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the 

sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive 

reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 

306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4440 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. 

(citation omitted).

During the sentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Glenn’s 

advisory Guidelines range, listened to Glenn’s allocution, considered Glenn’s arguments 

and the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Accordingly, 

Glenn’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. We further conclude that Glenn has failed to 

rebut the presumption that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Glenn, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Glenn 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 Glenn. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4440 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 4 of 4