UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES DAVID RATLIFF,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00310-RJC-DSC-1)

Submitted: June 2, 2023 Decided: June 12, 2023

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP, Lillington, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454 Doc: 60 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

James David Ratliff pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to forcibly 

assaulting, resisting, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a Deputy United States 

Marshal engaged in the performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 111(a)(1). The district court sentenced Ratliff to 12 months’ imprisonment, to run 

consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, and one year of supervised release. 

Ratliff’s counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but challenging the 

length of Ratliff’s sentence. Ratliff was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief but has not done so. After conducting review pursuant to Anders, we ordered 

supplemental briefing on the reasonableness of the standard conditions of supervision in 

light of this court’s decision in United States v. Oliver, No. 20-4500, 2022 WL 1223716 

(4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (argued but unpublished). 

In his supplemental brief, Ratliff contends that the district court inadequately 

explained why it imposed the discretionary supervision conditions and improperly 

delegated its authority to the probation officer. In response, the Government moves to 

dismiss Ratliff’s appeal, arguing that the issues raised in Ratliff’s Anders brief and 

supplemental brief are precluded by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. The 

Government further maintains that the district court adequately explained why it imposed 

the challenged supervision conditions and did not improperly delegate its authority to the

probation officer. Ratliff opposes the Government’s motion, contending that the motion 

was untimely and that his arguments are outside the scope of the waiver. We decline to 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454 Doc: 60 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
3

enforce the appeal waiver and deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

affirm. 

Turning to Ratliff’s challenges to his sentence, we generally review “all sentences—

whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 

147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, we must ensure that the 

district court “committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. 

Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the 

circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range 

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). A defendant can rebut the presumption only by showing 

that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United 

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 

Because Ratliff did not challenge the length of his term of imprisonment or the 

conditions of supervised release before the district court, we review those issues only for 

plain error. See United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 675 (4th Cir. 2020). “There is 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454 Doc: 60 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

plain error only when (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. Comer, 5 F.4th 535, 548 (4th Cir. 

2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the third prong, Ratliff bears the burden 

to “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding 

would have been different.” United States v. Combs, 36 F.4th 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2022) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

We conclude that Ratliff’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. 

The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, to which Ratliff did not object, 

and explained why it imposed the custodial sentence and term of supervised release, 

specifically citing the seriousness of the offense, Ratliff’s criminal history, and Ratliff’s 

disregard for the law. Ratliff fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded 

to his within-Guidelines sentence. 

Similarly, we discern no plain error in the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the conditions of supervised release. To the extent that the district court 

did not directly explain why it imposed the discretionary conditions of supervision, the 

court’s reasoning is self-evident, Ratliff did not object to the supervision conditions, and 

the court provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence as a whole. See United States 

v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 559 (4th Cir. 2021). Moreover, the discretionary supervision 

conditions are consistent with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). See United States 

v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 520-21 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that the special conditions 

recommended in the Guidelines “may otherwise be appropriate in particular cases” 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454 Doc: 60 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
5

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Lastly, with respect to Ratliff’s improper delegation 

challenges to certain discretionary supervision conditions, we discern no reversible plain 

error. And to the extent that the court erred, it did not affect Ratliff’s substantial rights. 

We therefore affirm the challenged supervision conditions. 

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, while we deny the Government’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires 

that counsel inform Ratliff, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Ratliff 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 Ratliff.

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: 21-4454 Doc: 60 Filed: 06/12/2023 Pg: 5 of 5