Court Opinion

ID: 9395042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:00:48.217036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.969243
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4154      Doc: 27         Filed: 05/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4154

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        THOMAS EDWARD NORMAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:17-cr-00527-HMH-1)

        Submitted: April 4, 2023                                          Decided: May 15, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur
        Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, Kathleen
        Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4154      Doc: 27          Filed: 05/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               In March 2020, Thomas Edward Norman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate

        his drug and firearm convictions and sentence. The district court granted the § 2255 motion

        in part, agreeing that Norman’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object

        to the application of a sentencing enhancement, and ordered that he be resentenced without

        the inapplicable enhancement. The court denied the § 2255 motion as to all other claims.

        The court thereafter resentenced Norman to an aggregate term of 90 months’

        imprisonment. Norman appeals the denial of the remainder of his § 2255 motion and the

        sentence imposed on resentencing.

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

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

        the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.          Norman has filed a pro se

        supplemental brief challenging the district court’s denial of several of the claims he raised

        in his § 2255 motion and asserting that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at

        resentencing. The Government has declined to file a response brief.

               To begin, an amended judgment entered as a result of a § 2255 resentencing “is a

        hybrid order that is both part of the petitioner’s § 2255 proceeding and part of his criminal

        case.” United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 664 (4th Cir. 2007). To the extent Norman

        seeks to appeal the order by assigning error to the district court’s denial of relief on some

        of the claims in his § 2255 motion, “he is appealing ‘the final order in a proceeding under

        § 2255’ and must obtain a [certificate of appealability] under § 2253.” Id. (quoting 28

        U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)). On the other hand, to the extent Norman seeks to challenge the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4154      Doc: 27          Filed: 05/15/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        propriety of the relief granted—for instance, whether the relief was proper under § 2255 or

        whether the new sentence contravenes the Sentencing Guidelines—“he is appealing a new

        criminal sentence” and, accordingly, need not first secure a certificate of appealability. Id.

        For the reasons discussed below, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        portion of Norman’s appeal challenging the district court’s order denying in part his § 2255

        motion, and we affirm the amended criminal judgment.

               We first consider Norman’s appeal of the district court’s earlier order denying relief

        on all but one of the claims asserted in Norman’s § 2255 motion. This order is not

        appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

        U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

        showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district

        court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 590 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district

        court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

        dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of

        the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norman has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss this appeal as to the district court’s July 17, 2020, order denying in part Norman’s

        § 2255 motion.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4154      Doc: 27         Filed: 05/15/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               We turn, then, to Norman’s appeal of the amended criminal judgment, which was

        imposed after the district court resentenced Norman pursuant to the prior grant of partial

        § 2255 relief. We review “the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        using an abuse-of-discretion standard.”     United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212

        (4th Cir. 2020). We must first “evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining whether

        the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the

        Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.” Id. (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the

        sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the

        sentence, taking into account ‘the totality of the circumstances.’” United States v. McCain,

        974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “Any sentence that is

        within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively]

        reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing United

        States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008)). “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.

               During the resentencing hearing, the district court accurately calculated Norman’s

        advisory Guidelines range, considered the parties’ arguments and the § 3553(a) factors,

        and adequately explained the chosen sentence.          Accordingly, Norman’s sentence is

        procedurally reasonable.     We further conclude that Norman has failed to rebut the

        presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4154         Doc: 27       Filed: 05/15/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

               Finally, Norman claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the

        resentencing hearing. We do not consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct

        appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the

        record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v.

        Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008)). The present record does not conclusively show

        that counsel’s performance was ineffective.          Accordingly, Norman’s claim is not

        cognizable on direct appeal.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

        other meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss Norman’s appeal of the district court’s order denying in part his § 2255 motion,

        and we affirm the amended criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her

        client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

        review. If the client 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 the

        client. 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.

                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART
                                                                         AND AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      5