Court Opinion

ID: 9891262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 21:00:25.470561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:26.484706
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4474      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4474

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DAVANTE MARCELLAS JOHNSON, a/k/a Davante Marcellos Johnson,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00362-TDS-1)

        Submitted: September 1, 2023                                  Decided: October 16, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
        Kyle D. Pousson, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4474      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/16/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Davante Marcellas Johnson pleaded guilty to threatening to assault a federal officer,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), (b)(4). The district court sentenced Johnson to 51

        months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson contends that the district court erred in

        calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a two-level enhancement

        under U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A6.1(b)(2)(A) (2021), based on the court’s

        finding that Johnson made more than two threats. Johnson also argues that the district

        court erred by applying a six-level enhancement under USSG § 3A1.2(b), based on the

        court’s finding that Johnson’s threats were motivated by the victim’s status as a

        government employee. We affirm.

               Rather than review the merits of Johnson’s challenge to the calculation of his

        Guidelines range, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.”

        United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “To apply this assumed error harmlessness inquiry we require (1)

        knowledge that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided

        the [G]uidelines issue the other way and (2) a determination that the sentence would be

        [substantively] reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the

        defendant’s favor.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

        quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Shivers, 56 F.4th 320, 327 (4th Cir. 2022).

        An error will be deemed harmless only when we are certain that these criteria are met.

        United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4474      Doc: 21           Filed: 10/16/2023    Pg: 3 of 4

               Here, the district court stated during the sentencing hearing that it would have

        imposed the same 51-month sentence even if it had not applied the challenged Guidelines

        enhancements. Thus, the first requirement of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is

        satisfied. See Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 383.

               Next, we must assess whether Johnson’s sentence would be substantively

        reasonable even if the district court had sustained his objections to the enhancements under

        USSG §§ 2A6.1(b)(2)(A), 3A1.2(b). Had the district court done so, Johnson’s Guidelines

        range would have been 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment rather than 51 to 63 months’

        imprisonment.

               In reviewing an upward-variant sentence for substantive reasonableness, “we

        consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to

        impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing

        range.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014). We afford “due

        deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,

        justify the extent of the variance, and the fact that we might reasonably have concluded

        that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district

        court.” United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

        marks omitted).     Our ultimate inquiry is whether, considering the totality of the

        circumstances, the district court “abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it

        chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza,

        597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4474      Doc: 21         Filed: 10/16/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

               We are satisfied that the 51-month sentence imposed by the district court is

        substantively reasonable even under an assumed Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months.

        Indeed, the district court adequately explained why a 51-month sentence was necessary,

        citing the § 3553(a) factors. In particular, the district court emphasized that Johnson had a

        significant criminal history, including multiple assault charges, one of which resulted in

        serious injury to the victim. Based on his criminal history and significant history of

        committing disciplinary infractions while incarcerated, as well as his recent arrest for

        assault resulting in injury to the victim, and his gang affiliation, the district court was

        appropriately concerned about Johnson’s propensity to engage in violent behavior.

        Because Johnson’s sentence is supported by the district court’s consideration of the

        § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. We are

        therefore satisfied that any Guidelines calculation error in these proceedings was harmless.

        See McDonald, 850 F.3d at 645.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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