Court Opinion

ID: 9352357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:00:35.298264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:37.306521
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4286      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/04/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 19-4286

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOSHUA NEAL ROBERTS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00382-WO-1)

        Submitted: December 21, 2022                                      Decided: January 4, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 19-4286       Doc: 22         Filed: 01/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Joshua Neal Roberts pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possessing

        a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and the district court

        sentenced him to 66 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On

        appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Roberts’

        sentence is reasonable. Roberts has filed a supplemental pro se brief arguing that the

        district court erred under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). We affirm.

               Because Roberts neither raised an objection during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

        proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the plea

        colloquy only for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).

        To establish plain error, Roberts “must show that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was

        plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d

        187, 191 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc). In the guilty plea context, a defendant can establish

        that an error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that he

        would not have pled guilty but for the Rule 11 omission. Sanya, 774 F.3d at 816.

               Prior to accepting a guilty plea, “a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant,

        must ensure that the defendant understands the nature of the charges to which the plea is

        offered.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016); see Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(1)(G). Here, the district court failed to ensure that Roberts understood that “the

        Government must prove both that [Roberts] knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew

        he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif,

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4286      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        139 S. Ct. at 2200. However, we conclude that the district court did not reversibly err

        because Roberts has not shown that “there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he would not

        have pled guilty” had the district court “correctly advised him of the mens rea element of

        the offense.” Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2097 (2021). Roberts fails to

        advance “a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented

        evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon.” Id. at 2100. We therefore

        conclude that Roberts’ § 922(g) conviction remains valid.

               We review Roberts’ sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails

        consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at

        51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court

        properly calculated the Sentencing 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. Generally, when reviewing a

        district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review the district court’s legal

        conclusions de novo and its factual conclusions for clear error. United States v. Fluker,

        891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir. 2018). If there are no procedural errors, we then consider the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of the circumstances.”

        Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it “is within

        or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can only be

        rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4286         Doc: 22      Filed: 01/04/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

               We conclude that Roberts’ sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, and while Roberts argued for

        a sentence below the Guidelines range, the court rejected Roberts’ mitigation arguments,

        concluding that a within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate given the need to protect the

        public, Roberts’ history and characteristics, and the seriousness of the offense. We

        conclude that Roberts fails to 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 grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

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

               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