Court Opinion

ID: 9556607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 21:01:21.430924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:17.729559
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456      Doc: 24         Filed: 08/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4456

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RODNEY CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN, a/k/a Rah Rah,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00203-WO-3)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: August 16, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS McCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
        Margaret M. Reece, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456      Doc: 24         Filed: 08/16/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Rodney Christopher Goodwin pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine,

        in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more

        of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court

        sentenced Goodwin to 192 months’ imprisonment for each conviction, to be served

        concurrently. On appeal, Goodwin argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable

        because the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

               Goodwin challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for

        being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

        Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2018), and a two-level enhancement for committing “the offense as

        part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood” under USSG

        § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E). However, any Guidelines error is harmless—and, thus, does not

        warrant reversal—if “(1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it

        had decided the Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable

        even if the Guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v.

        Mills, 917 F.3d 324, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). The error will be deemed harmless

        if we are “certain” that these requirements are satisfied. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d

        194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012).

               We conclude that the first prong of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is

        satisfied. The district court explicitly stated that, even if it incorrectly calculated the

        Guidelines range, it nonetheless would have imposed a 192-month sentence. Thus, “the

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456      Doc: 24          Filed: 08/16/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        district court made it abundantly clear that it would have imposed the same sentence

        . . . regardless of the advice of the Guidelines.” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d

        370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014).

               Turning to the second prong, we assess whether the sentence is substantively

        reasonable, considering the Guidelines range that would have applied absent the assumed

        errors. Mills, 917 F.3d at 331. When reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a

        sentence, “we must examine the totality of the circumstances . . . to see whether the

        sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the

        standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” Id. (cleaned up). If a sentence is outside the

        Guidelines range, we “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due

        deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the

        extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

               Here, if the district court had sustained Goodwin’s objections to the two

        enhancements at issue, his Guidelines range would have been 135 to 168 months’

        imprisonment, rather than 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. We are satisfied that the 192-

        month sentence is substantively reasonable even under this assumed Guidelines range

        because the district court thoroughly explained why the sentence was necessary under the

        § 3553(a) factors. The district court acknowledged that Goodwin had never been convicted

        of a felony offense but found that his criminal history was nonetheless serious. The district

        court also emphasized that Goodwin had not received a significant sentence for his prior

        offenses and continued to engage in criminal activity, suggesting that a longer sentence

        was appropriate in this case to promote respect for the law and provide deterrence. In light

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456       Doc: 24       Filed: 08/16/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        of the district court’s considered explanation, we conclude that Goodwin’s sentence would

        be substantively reasonable even if the challenged enhancements were not factored into his

        Guidelines range.

              Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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