Court Opinion

ID: 9895007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:32.017035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:11.796931
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4097      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4097

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RODERICK BRADLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00074-TSK-MJA-11)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Shawn A. Morgan, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4097      Doc: 29          Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Roderick Bradley pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to aiding and

        abetting the distribution of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C.

        §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).    The district court sentenced Bradley below the Sentencing

        Guidelines range to 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

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

        grounds for appeal but questioning whether Bradley knowingly and voluntarily waived his

        right to appeal his conviction and sentence ∗ and whether the district court erred in imposing

        Bradley’s sentence by failing to apply a 1:1 crack/powder cocaine ratio. Although notified

        of his right to do so, Bradley has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

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

        Sentencing 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). In conducting this review, we must first ensure that the sentence is procedurally

        reasonable, “consider[ing] whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s

        advisory [G]uidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate

        sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the

        selected sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the sentence is free of

               ∗
                As the Government has not sought enforcement of the appellate waiver, we need
        not consider whether the waiver precludes review of Bradley’s sentencing claim on appeal.
        See United States v. Kim, 71 F.4th 155, 162 n.4 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting we do not sua sponte
        enforce appellate waivers).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4097      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        “significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]

        into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

        (2007). “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). “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.

               Counsel questions whether Bradley’s sentence is reasonable because the district

        court rejected Bradley’s argument that the court should further vary below the Guidelines

        range to eliminate the disparity in treatment between crack offenses and cocaine offenses,

        citing a December 16, 2022, internal Department of Justice memorandum advising federal

        prosecutors on sentencing recommendations in cases involving crack offenses. However,

        while a district court is “entitled to consider policy decisions underlying the Guidelines,

        including the presence or absence of empirical evidence, it is under no obligation to do so.”

        United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal citations

        omitted). Here, the court acknowledged the memorandum and the policy choice behind it,

        but disagreed with that choice, explaining that the Guidelines’ treatment of crack and

        cocaine offenses was appropriate based on the court’s experience. We thus conclude that

        the court did not err in rejecting Bradley’s challenge to the Guidelines’ policy of treating

        crack offenses and cocaine offenses differently.

               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 Bradley, in writing, of the right to petition the

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4097         Doc: 29     Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

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

              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