Court Opinion

ID: 9930418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:45.483865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:36.392172
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4496      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4496

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM DONALDSON MITCHELL, a/k/a Suave,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00035-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Carly Cordaro
        Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4496      Doc: 29        Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

              William Donaldson Mitchell appeals his conviction and 78-month sentence

        imposed following his guilty plea to distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21

        U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On appeal, Mitchell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

        Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds

        for appeal but questioning the validity of the plea, the adequacy of the district court’s

        sentencing explanation, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Though

        notified of his right to do so, Mitchell has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

        Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.

              Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which

        it informs the defendant of, and determines that he understands, the nature of the charges

        to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalty he

        faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1);

        United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure

        that the defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed.

        R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Mitchell did not preserve any error in the plea

        proceedings, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. United States v.

        Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013)

        (describing standard). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Mitchell’s

        guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact.

              Next, we review Mitchell’s sentence for both procedural and substantive

        reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In evaluating procedural

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4496       Doc: 29         Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        reasonableness, we consider whether the district court adequately explained the sentence.

        United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 518 (4th Cir. 2017). “A sentencing court’s explanation

        is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the defendant’s particular history and

        characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but as part of its analysis of the [18

        U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors . . . .” Id. at 519 (cleaned up). In other words, the court “must

        conduct an individualized assessment” by applying the § 3553(a) factors “to the particular

        defendant” being sentenced. United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212-13 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, when the defendant “presents nonfrivolous

        reasons for imposing a sentence outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines [range], the

        sentencing judge must address or consider those arguments and explain why he has rejected

        them.” United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               At sentencing, Mitchell moved for a downward variance of 60 months’

        imprisonment, highlighting his difficult upbringing, record of volunteering and community

        involvement, and allegedly low likelihood of recidivism. In response, the district court

        varied downward—though not to the degree that Mitchell requested—citing Mitchell’s

        community work and challenging past. The court also acknowledged Mitchell’s recidivism

        argument by noting that Mitchell had avoided criminal conduct in the ten years between

        the instant offense and his last felony drug conviction. We therefore conclude that the

        court adequately addressed Mitchell’s arguments and sufficiently explained its sentencing

        decision.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4496         Doc: 29       Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

               Finally, 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. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines

        range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.

        2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is

        unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Here, the

        district court triggered the presumption by imposing a sentence 19 months below the low

        end of the properly calculated Guidelines range, and we discern nothing in the record to

        rebut the presumption.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal.          We therefore affirm Mitchell’s criminal

        judgment. At this juncture, we deny Anders counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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

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

               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