Court Opinion

ID: 9407754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-08 21:00:28.653891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.969501
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4234      Doc: 41         Filed: 07/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4234

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOSHUA I. LANKFORD, a/k/a 20-20, a/k/a 20, a/k/a Light Bright, a/k/a Yellow,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00371-CCB-2)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                              Decided: July 7, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.
        Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Mary W. Setzer, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4234       Doc: 41        Filed: 07/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Joshua I. Lankford pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The district court sentenced Lankford to

        the jointly-recommended sentence stated in the plea agreement of 204 months’

        imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, and ordered Lankford to pay

        restitution to the victim and a special assessment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) (1)(C). On

        appeal, Lankford’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether

        the district court erred when it paraphrased a special condition of supervised release when

        incorporating it from the presentence report. In response, the Government argues that the

        district court complied with the requirement to orally announce or incorporate discretionary

        conditions of supervised release this court set forth in United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d

        291 (4th Cir. 2020). Lankford filed a pro se brief raising additional issues. * Finding no

        error, we affirm.

               Because Lankford did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy

        of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621,

        622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018)

        (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

        Lankford entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported

               *
                 We have received the claims raised in Lankford’s pro se brief and conclude that
        they lack merit.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4234      Doc: 41         Filed: 07/07/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        the plea, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,

        119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). We further conclude that the district court properly announced,

        through incorporation, the special conditions of supervised release. See Rogers, 961 F.3d

        at 299-300.

               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 Lankford, in writing, of the right to petition the

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