Court Opinion

ID: 9364993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:27.213065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.885698
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4364      Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4364

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOEY DERRICK BEST, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00303-WO-1)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4364       Doc: 24          Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Joey Derrick Best, Jr., pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        distributing a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

        The district court sentenced Best to 92 months’ imprisonment—the bottom of his advisory

        Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Best’s 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 Best’s guilty plea is valid and whether Best’s sentence

        is procedurally and substantively reasonable. We affirm.

               Counsel first questions whether Best’s guilty plea is valid. Because Best did not

        move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the acceptance of his plea

        for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish

        plain error, Best must demonstrate that “(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. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th

        Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets

        his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by showing a

        reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the district court’s Fed.

        R. Crim. P. 11 omissions. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th Cir. 2014).

        Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district court substantially complied

        with Rule 11 and that any omissions during the plea colloquy did not affect Best’s

        substantial rights. We thus conclude that Best’s guilty plea is valid.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4364      Doc: 24          Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

               Counsel next questions whether Best’s 92-month sentence is procedurally and

        substantively reasonable. “We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a) using an abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is]

        inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance,

        957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).

        In performing that review, we first “evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining

        whether the district court committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating

        the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately

        explain the chosen sentence.” Id.

               If “the district court has not committed procedural error,” we then assess the

        substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Our substantive reasonableness review

        “takes into account the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the sentencing

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

        set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any sentence that is within

        or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively]

        reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted 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) (citation omitted).

               As to the procedural reasonableness of Best’s prison sentence, counsel questions

        whether the district court erred in calculating Best’s Guidelines range by denying him a

        reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

        § 3E1.1 (2018). The district court denied Best an acceptance of responsibility reduction

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4364       Doc: 24         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        after finding that he had frivolously contested relevant conduct related to the drug quantity

        calculation. See USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A) (providing that defendant who falsely denies

        or frivolously contests relevant conduct “has acted in a manner inconsistent with

        acceptance of responsibility”). Based upon our review of the record, we discern no clear

        error in the district court’s denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. See United

        States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 678 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review); United

        States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (recognizing “great deference” owed

        to district court’s decision on acceptance of responsibility).

               In addition to correctly calculating Best’s Guidelines range, the district court also

        adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, provided a meaningful explanation for the

        sentence that it chose, and sufficiently addressed defense counsel’s request for a lower

        sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-51. We are thus satisfied that Best’s sentence of

        imprisonment is procedurally reasonable.

               Finally, counsel questions whether Best’s prison sentence is substantively

        reasonable. We conclude that nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of substantive

        reasonableness afforded to Best’s 92-month sentence. The district court was appropriately

        concerned that Best had attempted to minimize his criminal conduct, suggesting that Best

        might not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and that Best could thus recidivate in

        the future. The district court also properly emphasized that Best had possessed a firearm

        while selling drugs and that he was not permitted to do so because he is a convicted felon.

        The district court acknowledged, however, that Best deserved some leniency for pleading

        guilty. And the district court added that, while Best had been convicted of multiple felonies

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4364         Doc: 24       Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        in state court, it viewed the instant offense as the most serious offense for which Best had

        ever been convicted. After considering those aggravating and mitigating facts in the

        context of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court reasonably arrived at a sentence of 92

        months. See Jeffery, 631 F.3d at 679 (recognizing that “district courts have extremely

        broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a) factors”).

        We therefore conclude that Best’s sentence of imprisonment 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 thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Best, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

        Court of the United States for further review. If Best 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 Best.

               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

               *
                  Counsel questions whether Best’s prison sentence is substantively reasonable
        based on the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act,
        H.R. 1693, 117th Cong. (2021), which would have eliminated the federal sentencing
        disparity between federal drug offenses involving cocaine base and powder cocaine. The
        Government mentioned the pendency of the EQUAL Act at Best’s sentencing hearing, and
        the district court expressed familiarity with the Act. We discern no error in the district
        court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors based on the EQUAL Act.

                                                      5