Court Opinion

ID: 9945993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:58.074624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:20.939077
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4200      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4200

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GEOFFREY LEDON LEE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00032-D-1)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Joseph L. Bell, Jr., BATTS, BATTS & BELL, LLP, Rocky Mount, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
        Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4200       Doc: 29          Filed: 02/27/2024       Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Geoffrey Ledon Lee appeals his conviction and the 120-month sentence imposed

        after he entered a straight-up guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possession with

        intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(B), 846. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

        738 (1967), indicating that he has found no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggesting

        two issues for review, to wit: whether the district court (1) erroneously calculated the drug

        weight for which Lee was held responsible; and (2) imposed a substantively unreasonable

        sentence. The Government has declined to file a response brief, and Lee has not filed a

        pro se supplemental brief despite being informed of his right to do so. Finding no error,

        we affirm.

               We review a criminal “sentence[ ]—whether inside, just outside, or significantly

        outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

        standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We “first ensure that the district

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

        calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,

        . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no significant

        procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id.; see

        United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). “Any sentence that is within

        or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United

        States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 230 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4200       Doc: 29          Filed: 02/27/2024        Pg: 3 of 5

        when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

        295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               Counsel suggests that the district court erroneously calculated Lee’s Guidelines

        range by finding Lee responsible for 4,729.15 kilograms of converted drug weight.

        According to counsel, the district court should not have relied on statements Lee’s

        coconspirator made to law enforcement to calculate the drug weight. But it is well

        established that “[t]he calculation of the amount of drugs which results in the establishment

        of the base offense level is a factual determination subject to review only for clear error.”

        United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 881 (4th Cir. 1991). And “[w]hen reviewing factual

        findings for clear error, we particularly defer to a district court’s credibility determinations,

        for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility.”

        United States v. Palmer, 820 F.3d 640, 653 (4th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).

               Here, the district court made it abundantly clear that it credited law enforcement’s

        testimony that the coconspirator’s statements were corroborated and, thus, we defer to the

        court’s credibility determination. See id. The district court further explained that it also

        relied on what it determined were conservative drug weight calculations contained in Lee’s

        presentence report (“PSR”). Absent an affirmative showing of error in the PSR, the district

        court was free to adopt and rely on the information contained therein to calculate Lee’s

        Guidelines range. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210-11 (4th Cir. 1999) (“If

        the district court relies on information in the [PSR] in making findings, the defendant bears

        the burden of establishing that the information relied on by the district court in making its

        findings is incorrect; mere objections are insufficient.”).

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4200      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 4 of 5

               We also reject counsel’s suggestion that Lee’s sentence is substantively

        unreasonable.    In this regard, counsel contends that the district court imposed an

        unreasonable sentence because it refused to sentence Lee to the bottom of his Guidelines

        range, even though Lee suffers from physical limitations caused by a stroke he suffered in

        2011. But the district court expressly considered Lee’s physical limitations and exercised

        its discretion in finding that the limitations did not warrant a lesser sentence. As Lee has

        failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence,

        we defer to the district court’s decision to impose the 120-month sentence. See United

        States v. Yooho Weon, 722 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2013) (“In analyzing a sentence for

        substantive reasonableness, we consider the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard, whereby we must defer to the trial court and can reverse a sentence

        only if it is unreasonable, even if the sentence would not have been the choice of the

        appellate court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

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

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

        the United States for further review. If Lee 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 Lee. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4200         Doc: 29     Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 5 of 5

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    5