Court Opinion

ID: 9404750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:34.130249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.922101
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 8

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4502

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        PATRICK JAMES DONOVAN,

                            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-00173-LCB-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, Durham, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4502       Doc: 28         Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 8

        PER CURIAM:

               Patrick James Donovan pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being

        a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). *

        The district court sentenced Donovan to 120 months’ imprisonment and imposed a 3-year

        term of supervised release. 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 review,

        but questioning whether the district court erred in overruling Donovan’s objections to the

        Sentencing Guidelines range and in imposing a term of supervised release. Although

        notified of his right to do so, Donovan has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, but

        identified one argument in his pro se notice of appeal—whether the district court lacked

        authority to impose a term of supervised release because it imposed the statutory maximum

        term of imprisonment. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

               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, allowed the parties to argue for an

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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 8

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

        explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.

               In considering Guidelines challenges, we review the district court’s legal

        determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Dennings,

        922 F.3d 232, 235 (4th Cir. 2019). A factual “finding is clearly erroneous when although

        there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the

        definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Wooden,

        887 F.3d 591, 602 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the district court’s

        account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court

        of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of

        fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” United States v. Ferebee, 957 F.3d

        406, 417 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Counsel questions the district court’s decision to impose enhancements under U.S.

        Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), 3A1.2(c)(1) (2021). Both turn on the

        district court’s factual findings—whether Donovan possessed a rifle and pointed it at two

        law enforcement officers. The Guidelines recommend a four-level enhancement if a

        defendant “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony

        offense.” USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). A firearm was possessed “in connection with” another

        felony offense if it “facilitated or had the potential of facilitating another felony,” which

        occurs when the “firearm has some purpose or effect with respect to the other offense,” but

        not “when it is present due to mere accident or coincidence.” United States v. Bolden, 964

        F.3d 283, 287 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “Another felony offense” is “any federal, state,

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 8

        or local offense, other than the . . . firearms possession . . . offense, punishable by

        imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, regardless of whether a criminal charge was

        brought, or a conviction obtained.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(C). The Government bears

        the burden to prove the facts supporting the enhancement by a preponderance of the

        evidence. United States v. Andrews, 808 F.3d 964, 968 (4th Cir. 2015).

               The probation officer identified the felony as North Carolina assault on a law

        enforcement officer with a firearm. “The elements of the offense of assault with a firearm

        on a law enforcement officer are: (1) an assault; (2) with a firearm; (3) on a law

        enforcement officer; (4) while the officer is engaged in the performance of his duties.”

        State v. Dickens, 592 S.E.2d 567, 571 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004). “An assault is an overt act or

        attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to the person of

        another, which show of force or violence must be sufficient to put a person of reasonable

        firmness in fear of immediate physical injury.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, “the

        defendant must have known or had reasonable grounds to know that the victim was a law

        enforcement officer.” Id.

               The district court did not clearly err in finding that Donovan pointed a firearm at the

        officers. While the officer did not definitively testify that he saw a firearm, he believed

        that the object Donovan was pointing at the officers was a firearm. And he testified that

        he observed Donovan pointing a light, and Donovan’s rifle had a flashlight attached to it.

        The district court found the officer to be credible, and the body camera video does not

        contradict his account.

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 5 of 8

               The district court also properly applied USSG § 3A1.2(c)(1), which authorizes a

        sentencing court to enhance the offense level by six if the defendant, “in a manner creating

        a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, . . . knowing or having reasonable cause to

        believe that a person was a law enforcement officer, assaulted such officer during the

        course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom.” The enhancement applies only “in

        circumstances tantamount to [an] aggravated assault”—that is, “assaultive conduct . . .

        sufficiently serious to create at least a ‘substantial risk of serious bodily injury.’” USSG

        § 3A1.2 cmt. n.4(A). Serious bodily injury is defined as an “injury involving extreme

        physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or

        mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or

        physical rehabilitation.” USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(M). Because the Guidelines do not define

        assault, we apply the common law definition of assault. United States v. Hampton, 628

        F.3d 654, 660 (4th Cir. 2010). The common law defines assault as “attempted battery or

        the deliberate infliction upon another of a reasonable fear of physical injury.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               “A defendant’s attempt to point a firearm at a law enforcement officer is a sufficient

        basis to apply the enhancement.” United States v. Albarran-Flores, 724 F. App’x 234, 235

        (4th Cir. 2018) (No. 17-4695) (collecting cases). In Albarran-Flores, a surveillance video

        showed the defendant “with a firearm immediately before the police officer arrived on the

        scene.” Id. The police officer testified that she observed him point a gun at him, and while

        the video showed the defendant raising his arm but did not show if he had a gun, we

        affirmed the enhancement because the district court fairly “concluded that it would make

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502       Doc: 28         Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 6 of 8

        no sense for [the defendant] to raise his arm and point it at the officer if he was not holding

        a firearm in his hand.” Id. As in Albarran-Flores, the officers here observed the defendant

        with what they believed was a firearm and available video evidence did not contradict their

        account. Thus, the district court did not err in overruling Donovan’s objections to his

        Guidelines range. We further discern no other procedural error in this case.

               Counsel also questions whether Donovan’s sentence is substantively reasonable. If

        a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for substantive

        reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at

        51. We apply “a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within or below a properly

        calculated guidelines 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). We find no evidence in the record

        overcomes the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded Donovan’s within-

        Guidelines sentence.

               Counsel briefly raises Donovan’s pro se argument related to the district court’s

        decision to impose a term of supervised release despite imposing the statutory maximum

        term of imprisonment. But counsel appropriately concedes that this issue is frivolous. See

        United States v. Pierce, 75 F.3d 173, 178 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[S]upervised release is not

        considered to be a part of the incarceration portion of a sentence and therefore is not limited

        by the statutory maximum term of incarceration.”).

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/23/2023      Pg: 7 of 8

               Finally, counsel questions whether the imposition of supervised release was

        procedurally and substantively reasonable. “District courts have broad latitude to impose

        discretionary conditions of supervised release.” United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 557

        (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district “court may impose any . . .

        condition it considers to be appropriate, as long as that condition is ‘reasonably related’ to

        statutory factors referred to in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d)(1).” United States v. Dotson, 324

        F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2003). Those “factors are: the nature and circumstances of the

        offenses and the history and characteristics of the defendant; providing adequate

        deterrence; protecting the public from further crimes; and providing the defendant with

        training, medical care, or treatment.” Id. (cleaned up). “Conditions imposed in connection

        with these factors must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably

        necessary for achieving the specified goals, and they must be consistent with Sentencing

        Commission policy statements on supervised release.” Id. (cleaned up).

               A district court generally must explain why a discretionary condition is warranted

        under § 3583(d). Boyd, 5 F.4th at 557.            “The degree of explanation required—the

        appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say—

        varies with the complexity of a given case.” Id. (cleaned up). At bottom, “a sentencing

        court must always offer enough of an explanation to satisfy us that it has considered the

        parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making

        authority.” Id. at 559 (cleaned up). As relevant here, a court must provide a reason for

        assigning a discretionary condition of supervise release unless (1) the reason is “self-

        evident,” (2) the defendant did not raise a nonfrivolous objection to the condition, and (3)

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4502      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 8 of 8

        the court offered an adequate explanation for the sentence as a whole. Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Because Donovan did not object to any of the discretionary

        conditions of supervised release before or during the sentencing hearing, any challenge to

        those conditions is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593,

        611-12 (4th Cir. 2022), pet. for cert. filed, No. 22-1055 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2023).

               Donovan cannot demonstrate plain error. The district court explained why it was

        imposing the conditions of supervised release, tying them to Donovan’s offense conduct

        and recidivist history. The court also provided a sufficient explanation for the entire

        sentence, and it is self-evident that Donovan needs many of the disputed conditions.

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

        have found no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Donovan, in writing, of the right

        to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Donovan 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 Donovan. 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

                                                     8