Court Opinion

ID: 9956775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:34.959968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.976623
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4419      Doc: 29         Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4419

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        SHAWN LAMONT HICKMAN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00028-KDB-SCR-2)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                          Decided: April 1, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: D. Baker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
        Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4419       Doc: 29          Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Shawn Lamont Hickman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of methamphetamine (actual), in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Hickman to 156

        months’ imprisonment, which was below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 188-

        235 months, and 4 years of supervised release. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

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

        for appeal, but asking this court to review the reasonableness of the selected sentence and

        whether Hickman received constitutionally deficient representation. Although informed

        of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Hickman has not done so. The Government

        declined to file a brief. We affirm.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First,

        we ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing

        to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18

        U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing

        to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668

        (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence

        ‘is procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of

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

        Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We afford a

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4419      Doc: 29         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        presumption of reasonableness to any sentence within or below a properly calculated

        Guidelines range. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir. 2022). A

        defendant can rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

        when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

        295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               Our review of the record confirms the procedural reasonableness of Hickman’s

        sentence. The district court took testimony to resolve Hickman’s primary objection, which

        was to the drug quantity attributed to him for sentencing purposes. After thorough

        consideration, the court overruled this objection, as well as Hickman’s other objections,

        and adopted the Guidelines calculations set forth in the revised presentence report. We

        discern no error in the calculation of Hickman’s advisory Guidelines range. The district

        court also afforded the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence and heard

        Hickman’s allocution. The district court then identified the § 3553(a) factors it deemed

        most relevant, which the court balanced with the positive considerations in this case, and

        provided a reasoned explanation for the chosen sentence. And because there is nothing in

        the record that undermines the presumption of substantive reasonableness afforded the

        selected below-Guidelines sentence, we also conclude that Hickman’s sentence is

        substantively reasonable.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4419      Doc: 29         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

               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 Hickman, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hickman 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 Hickman. 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

               ∗
                  Because the record does not conclusively establish that counsel provided
        ineffective assistance, we decline to address Hickman’s somewhat perfunctory ineffective
        assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th
        Cir. 2016) (noting that 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”). This “claim should be raised, if at all, in a [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” United
        States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

                                                     4