Court Opinion

ID: 9403962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:51.558177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.175156
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4675      Doc: 29         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4675

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JABRIEL FITZGERALD LAKES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00078-D-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4675      Doc: 29         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jabriel Fitzgerald Lakes appeals the 132-month prison sentence imposed following

        his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance

        containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Lakes

        challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for possessing a

        dangerous weapon under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2021) when

        calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, and asserts that the error was not

        harmless. Because any error in the application of the Guidelines enhancement was

        harmless, we affirm.

               Rather than evaluating the merits of Lakes’ challenge to the calculation of the

        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). In other words, we may assume that the alleged Guidelines error occurred

        and “proceed to examine whether the error affected the sentence imposed.” United States

        v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017). “[W]e can find any error harmless if we

        have (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 reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s

        favor.” United States v. Gondres-Medrano, 3 F.4th 708, 721 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). The claimed error will be deemed harmless only when we are

        “certain” that these requirements are met. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th

        Cir. 2012).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4675      Doc: 29          Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               In this case, the first part of the inquiry is satisfied “because the district court has

        expressly stated in a separate and particular explanation that it would have reached the

        same result” even if it had erred in applying the Guidelines. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at

        383. With respect to the second step of the analysis, we review a sentence for substantive

        reasonableness by “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances to determine

        whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

        satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957

        F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Here, the district court appropriately balanced Lakes’ serious offense conduct and

        extensive criminal history with the mitigating factors he presented. The district court

        further explained that the 132-month sentence imposed was necessary to promote respect

        for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate general deterrence. In light of

        the district court’s thorough discussion of the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that

        Lakes’ sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the district

        court erred in applying the disputed Guidelines enhancement—an issue we do not reach—

        the error was harmless.

               We therefore 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

                                                      3