Court Opinion

ID: 9364988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:22.986942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.873737
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595      Doc: 30         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4595

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RICHARD HOPKINS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:20-cr-00719-CMC-10)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elliott Bishop Daniels,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4595         Doc: 30        Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                  Richard Hopkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

        distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin, possession with intent

        to distribute fentanyl and heroin, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

        trafficking crime. Hopkins was sentenced to 228 months in prison. Hopkins’ counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

        no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising for the court’s consideration the following

        issues: (1) whether Hopkins’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was properly conducted and

        (2) whether the district court properly calculated the drug quantity. Neither Hopkins nor

        the Government has filed a brief. We affirm.

                  Our review of the plea hearing shows that the proceeding was conducted

        substantially in compliance with Rule 11. Moreover, Hopkins knowingly and voluntarily

        pled guilty to his offense, and his plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis. We

        therefore find no reversible error in the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. Martinez,

        277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that when defendant does not seek to withdraw

        his guilty plea or otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, review is for plain

        error).

                  Next, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s

        calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Hopkins.           At sentencing, Hopkins

        challenged the testimony of a cooperating witness, asserting that a more conservative

        calculation should apply. The district court reduced the drug weight based on Hopkins’

        objections, although the decrease was not as large as the one for which Hopkins advocated.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595       Doc: 30          Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        Specifically, the court found the witness to be credible and consistent, and Hopkins does

        not dispute that the witness’s testimony, if accepted, supported the court’s calculations.

        Thus, the district court did not clearly err in its drug quantity findings. See United States v.

        Davis, 918 F.3d 397, 405 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating that, at sentencing, the Government must

        prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence).

               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 Hopkins, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                       3