Court Opinion

ID: 9382167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:38.087286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.371042
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4056      Doc: 41         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4056

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ALVIN MILTON DAVIS, III,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00333-D-2)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4056       Doc: 41        Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Alvin Milton Davis, III, pleaded guilty, without a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of

        marijuana and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846;

        possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana and a quantity of cocaine and

        aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. § 2; and

        possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 2. The district court sentenced Davis to

        concurrent terms of 72 months’ imprisonment on the first two counts and a consecutive 60-

        month term on the third count, for a total sentence of 132 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. Although advised of his right to

        do so, Davis has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. The Government has declined to

        file a response brief.

               Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the

        defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

        charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum

        possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by

        pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the

        defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not

        result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Davis did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4056       Doc: 41          Filed: 03/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        plea, we review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d

        621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016).

               Our review of the plea colloquy confirms that the district court fully complied with

        Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly concluded that Davis’ plea was knowing, voluntary, and

        supported by a sufficient factual basis. Discerning no plain error, we conclude that Davis’

        guilty plea is valid.

               As for Davis’ sentence, we “review a sentence for reasonableness ‘under a

        deferential abuse-of-discretion standard[]’ . . . whether the sentence is ‘inside, just outside,

        or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349, 351

        (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review

        encompasses both the sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552

        U.S. at 51.    After reviewing the record, we conclude that Davis’ sentence is both

        procedurally and substantively reasonable.

               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 Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4056         Doc: 41    Filed: 03/23/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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