UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOMINIQUE SHANTAE LYTCH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00565-WO-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: July 14, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Renorda Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, High Point, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dominique Shantae Lytch pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to 

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. 

The district court sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment and a five-year term of 

supervised release. On appeal, Lytch’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. 

Lytch has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court erred in its 

calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a two-level enhancement under 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2018), for possessing a firearm during 

the offense. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm. 

 Because Lytch did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of 

the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 

622 (4th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) 

(discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Lytch 

entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the 

plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning 

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

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review 

entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 

Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court 

properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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

sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors, 

then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of 

the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it 

“is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can 

only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 

Lytch challenges the two-level firearm enhancement pursuant to USSG 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), arguing that the weapon was not in his immediate possession and that 

someone else possessed it. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error 

and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 

2018). We conclude that, based on the findings of the presentence report adopted by the 

district court and the testimony presented at Lytch’s sentencing hearing, the court did not 

err in applying the enhancement. 

The district court also allowed Lytch to allocute and afforded counsel an opportunity 

to argue for an appropriate sentence. After considering the parties’ arguments and Lytch’s 

statement, the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, the court determined that a 210-month sentence was warranted based on the 

circumstances of Lytch’s offense conduct, his history and characteristics, and the need for 

the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from 

further crimes by Lytch. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). The court’s explanation 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

was sufficient to support the imposition of Lytch’s within-Guidelines sentence, and Lytch 

does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it. Lytch’s sentence is 

procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no abuse of discretion in 

the district court’s imposition of the 210-month prison term. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lytch, in writing, of the right to petition

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

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: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 4 of 4