UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4418

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE ROGERS, a/k/a Rone,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00049-H-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Rogers appeals his below-Guidelines 108-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine 

and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). On appeal, Rogers’ counsel filed a brief 

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that 

he found no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the 

validity of Rogers’ plea and the reasonableness of his sentence. 

Rogers was informed that he could file a supplemental pro se 

brief, but has not done so. The Government has not responded to 

the Anders brief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case. We review errors raised only on appeal for 

plain error. United States v. Lockhart, 58 F.3d 86, 88 (4th 

Cir. 1995). Plain error requires that “(1) an error was 

committed; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected 

[Rogers’] substantial rights.” Id. An error affects 

substantial rights if it was prejudicial, meaning “[i]t must 

have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” 

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, (1993).

At the plea hearing, while the magistrate judge did not 

have the plea agreement read in open court, he had a copy of the 

agreement, described the essential exchange between the parties, 
3

and confirmed that Rogers understood the plea and consulted with 

counsel about it. Because all parties understood the plea and 

the magistrate judge discussed the main purpose of the plea, the 

failure to read the agreement in open court did not affect the 

outcome of the plea hearing and no reversible error occurred.

Nor did reversible error occur at the sentencing hearing

when the district court did not expressly ask whether Rogers had 

read the presentence report or consulted with counsel about it. 

After Rogers’ counsel objected to the report, the district court 

significantly lowered the Sentencing Guidelines range from the

range in the presentence report. Accordingly, the error did not 

affect Rogers’ sentence, and remand for resentencing would be 

fruitless. See United States v. Garrett, 371 F. App’x 429, 430 

(4th Cir. 2010) (No. 09-4953).

Our review of the record reveals no other meritorious 

issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s 

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Rogers, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Rogers 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 Rogers.
4

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