Court Opinion

ID: 9401755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 21:00:54.705195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.051352
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454      Doc: 60         Filed: 06/12/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4454

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES DAVID RATLIFF,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00310-RJC-DSC-1)

        Submitted: June 2, 2023                                           Decided: June 12, 2023

        Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON LAW FIRM, LLP, Lillington, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454      Doc: 60         Filed: 06/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               James David Ratliff pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to forcibly

        assaulting, resisting, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a Deputy United States

        Marshal engaged in the performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 111(a)(1). The district court sentenced Ratliff to 12 months’ imprisonment, to run

        consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, and one year of supervised release.

               Ratliff’s counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

        738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but challenging the

        length of Ratliff’s sentence. Ratliff was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental

        brief but has not done so. After conducting review pursuant to Anders, we ordered

        supplemental briefing on the reasonableness of the standard conditions of supervision in

        light of this court’s decision in United States v. Oliver, No. 20-4500, 2022 WL 1223716

        (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022) (argued but unpublished).

               In his supplemental brief, Ratliff contends that the district court inadequately

        explained why it imposed the discretionary supervision conditions and improperly

        delegated its authority to the probation officer. In response, the Government moves to

        dismiss Ratliff’s appeal, arguing that the issues raised in Ratliff’s Anders brief and

        supplemental brief are precluded by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement.            The

        Government further maintains that the district court adequately explained why it imposed

        the challenged supervision conditions and did not improperly delegate its authority to the

        probation officer. Ratliff opposes the Government’s motion, contending that the motion

        was untimely and that his arguments are outside the scope of the waiver. We decline to

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454         Doc: 60         Filed: 06/12/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        enforce the appeal waiver and deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

        affirm.

                  Turning to Ratliff’s challenges to his sentence, we generally 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). First, we must ensure that the

        district court “committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or

        improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing

        to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly

        erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v.

        Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

        (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking into account the totality of the

        circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting

        Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range

        is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir.), cert.

        denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). A defendant can rebut the presumption only by showing

        that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors. United

        States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

                  Because Ratliff did not challenge the length of his term of imprisonment or the

        conditions of supervised release before the district court, we review those issues only for

        plain error. See United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 675 (4th Cir. 2020). “There is

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454      Doc: 60           Filed: 06/12/2023    Pg: 4 of 5

        plain error only when (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects

        substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

        reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Comer, 5 F.4th 535, 548 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the third prong, Ratliff bears the burden

        to “show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding

        would have been different.” United States v. Combs, 36 F.4th 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2022)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We conclude that Ratliff’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

        The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, to which Ratliff did not object,

        and explained why it imposed the custodial sentence and term of supervised release,

        specifically citing the seriousness of the offense, Ratliff’s criminal history, and Ratliff’s

        disregard for the law. Ratliff fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded

        to his within-Guidelines sentence.

               Similarly, we discern no plain error in the procedural and substantive

        reasonableness of the conditions of supervised release. To the extent that the district court

        did not directly explain why it imposed the discretionary conditions of supervision, the

        court’s reasoning is self-evident, Ratliff did not object to the supervision conditions, and

        the court provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence as a whole. See United States

        v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 559 (4th Cir. 2021). Moreover, the discretionary supervision

        conditions are consistent with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). See United States

        v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 520-21 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that the special conditions

        recommended in the Guidelines “may otherwise be appropriate in particular cases”

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4454         Doc: 60       Filed: 06/12/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        (internal quotation marks omitted)). Lastly, with respect to Ratliff’s improper delegation

        challenges to certain discretionary supervision conditions, we discern no reversible plain

        error. And to the extent that the court erred, it did not affect Ratliff’s substantial rights.

        We therefore affirm the challenged supervision conditions.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, while we deny the Government’s

        motion to dismiss the appeal, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires

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

        United States for further review. If Ratliff 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 Ratliff.

               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

                                                      5