Court Opinion

ID: 9831297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:22.113758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.613851
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4515      Doc: 34         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4515

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        WILLIAM JAMAL MCCAULEY,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00413-LCB-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sandra Barrett, Hendersonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jacob Darriel
        Pryor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4515      Doc: 34          Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               William McCauley pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession

        with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).

        The district court sentenced him to 160 months’ imprisonment, below the applicable

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

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

        but questioning whether (1) McCauley’s guilty plea is valid, (2) his sentence is reasonable,

        and (3) the special conditions of supervised release contained in the written judgment are

        consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Although notified of

        his right to do so, McCauley has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government

        has declined to file a brief. For the following reasons, we affirm.

               Because McCauley 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

        621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). 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 charge 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 the court’s compliance with

        Rule 11, we “accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4515      Doc: 34         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

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

        (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).      We have reviewed the Rule 11

        colloquy and, discerning no plain error, we conclude that McCauley’s guilty plea is valid.

               “We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an

        abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside,

        or significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957

        F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (first alteration in original) (quoting Gall v. United States,

        552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). In performing that review, we must first determine whether the

        district court “committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the

        Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.” Id. If “the district court has not committed procedural error,” we

        then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.            Id.   Our substantive

        reasonableness review “takes into account the totality of the circumstances to determine

        whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

        satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any

        sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

        [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted 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) (citation omitted).

               We are satisfied that McCauley's sentence of imprisonment is procedurally

        reasonable. Our review of the record confirms that the district properly calculated the

        advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, heard argument

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4515         Doc: 34      Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        on McCauley’s request for a downward variance and granted his request, and sufficiently

        explained the reasons for the sentence it imposed. We also conclude that nothing in the

        record rebuts the presumption of substantive reasonableness afforded to McCauley’s 160-

        month sentence.

               Finally, we conclude that the special conditions of supervised release contained in

        the written judgment are consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the

        sentence. Each special condition imposed in the judgment was explicitly announced by

        the district court judge at the sentencing hearing, to no objections. See United States v.

        Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020).

               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 McCauley, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

               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

                                                     4