Court Opinion

ID: 9405637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:00:44.044889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.173873
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4012      Doc: 25         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4012

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KEYONTA TAREZZE LANGLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00025-D-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark R. Sigmon, SIGMON LAW, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John Gibbons, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4012      Doc: 25          Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Keyonta Tarezze Langley pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted

        felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).          We affirmed Langley’s

        conviction, but we vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district

        court had not orally pronounced all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release. United

        States v. Langley, No. 19-4689, 2022 WL 4077093, at *1 (4th Cir. Sept. 6, 2022). On

        remand, the district court sentenced Langley to 90 months’ imprisonment and three years

        of supervised release. Langley has again appealed. 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 Langley’s sentence is substantively

        unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental brief, Langley argues that the district court failed

        to grant him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We affirm the district court’s

        amended judgment but remand with instructions to make one correction in the amended

        judgment.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

        142 S. Ct. 625 (2021). “[W]e must first ensure that the district court committed no

        significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines

        range, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.”     Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).       “If the sentence is

        procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking

        into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506,

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4012      Doc: 25         Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A sentence that is within or below

        a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.

        Bennett, 986 F.3d 389, 401 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant

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

        measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Beginning with procedural reasonableness, the district court at resentencing

        correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the parties’ arguments and Langley’s

        individualized circumstances, allowed Langley to allocute, and explained why the chosen

        sentence was appropriate. And despite Langley’s assertion on appeal, the court did in fact

        include a reduction for acceptance of responsibility within its Guidelines calculation.

               Our review of the record did, however, uncover one issue with Langley’s supervised

        release conditions. At resentencing, the district court ordered Langley to support his

        children, while the amended written judgment requires Langley to support his dependents.

        A district court must announce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the

        sentencing hearing. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020). And

        we have explained that inconsistency between the descriptions of a supervised release

        condition announced at sentencing and in the written judgment may constitute reversible

        Rogers error where the government fails to explain the alleged inconsistency. United

        States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2022); see United States v. Jenkins, No.

        21-4003, 2022 WL 112069, at *2 (4th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022). However, in the context of this

        record, which reflects no dependents other than Langley’s children, it is clear the district

        court’s intention was to require Langley to support his children. In these circumstances,

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4012      Doc: 25         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        “[t]he proper remedy is for the [d]istrict [c]ourt to correct the written judgment so that it

        conforms with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncements.” United States v. Morse, 344

        F.2d 27, 29 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965). Thus, Langley’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

               Turning to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, the district court found

        that, although Langley had taken some courses at his prison facility since the initial

        sentencing hearing, he had also incurred infractions for fighting and disruptive conduct.

        The district court explained that the sentence was necessary in light of the seriousness of

        Langley’s offense; his criminal history; and the need to afford adequate deterrence,

        promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. Given the district court’s

        considered explanation under the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that Langley fails to rebut

        the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is 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 amended judgment and

        remand to the district court with instructions to correct the amended judgment to conform

        with the court’s oral pronouncement that Langley support his children, leaving the

        sentence, including the remaining conditions of supervised release, undisturbed. This court

        requires that counsel inform Langley, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court

        of the United States for further review. If Langley 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 Langley.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4012         Doc: 25    Filed: 06/27/2023   Pg: 5 of 5

              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 AND REMANDED

                                                  5