UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4573

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DUSTIN BLAIR HENRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00038-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jeffrey W. Gillette, GILLETTE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Franklin, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4573 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Dustin Blair Henry pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 

grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, 

distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018).1

 The district court sentenced Henry to 235 

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

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

but questioning whether Henry’s plea was coerced and whether the district court erred in 

relying on uncharged conduct in applying two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements. 

Although notified of his right to do so, Henry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We 

affirm the district court’s judgment.

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy during 

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

rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the 

maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The 

court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or 

1 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g) 

convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory 

maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer 

Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-

year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Henry committed 

his offense before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4573 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
3

promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that a factual 

basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

Because Henry did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea,2 we review the adequacy 

of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th 

Cir. 2016). “Under the plain error standard, [we] will correct an unpreserved error if (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). The record demonstrates that Henry’s dissatisfaction with his plea resulted not 

from coercion, but from his displeasure with his Guidelines range and counsel’s refusal to 

take steps that were not factually or legally supported. We therefore affirm Henry’s 

convictions.

We review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under the Gall standard, a 

sentence is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In 

determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines 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. at 49-51. If a sentence is free of 

2 Although Henry filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he withdrew his motion 

before the court ruled on it.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4573 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

“significant procedural error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] 

into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 51. We “apply a presumption of 

reasonableness to a sentence within or below a properly calculated [G]uidelines range.” 

United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). This “presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 357-58 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A] sentencing court may consider uncharged and acquitted conduct in determining 

a sentence, as long as that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” United 

States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 799 (4th Cir. 2009). The two Guidelines enhancements 

that counsel questions were based on conduct that Henry admitted in a statement to law 

enforcement, and thus the district court did not err in applying the enhancements. We 

discern no other procedural error in this case. We further conclude that Henry cannot 

overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded to his within-Guidelines sentence.

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

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4573 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
5

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: 22-4573 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 5 of 5