Court Opinion

ID: 9391683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:34.197248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.810798
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4236      Doc: 39         Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4236

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DEMOND TERRELL FORREST,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00471-D-3)

        Submitted: March 27, 2023                                             Decided: May 1, 2023

        Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN,
        PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States
        Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, James Redd, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4236      Doc: 39         Filed: 05/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Demond Terrell Forrest appeals the 216-month sentence imposed following his

        guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50

        grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and three

        counts of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        § 841(a)(1). At sentencing, the district court allowed the Government to proceed on an

        untimely objection to the presentence report (PSR) and present evidence of additional drug

        weight attributable to Forrest. The district court found the Government’s evidence credible

        and determined that Forrest’s advisory Guidelines range was 210 to 262 months. On

        appeal, Forrest contends that the district court committed procedural error in allowing the

        late admission of the additional drug weight evidence and that the court imposed a

        substantively unreasonable sentence. However, assuming without deciding that the court

        made the Guidelines error Forrest alleges, we conclude that such error is harmless.

        Accordingly, we affirm.

               “[R]ather than review the merits of [Forrest’s] challenge[], we may proceed directly

        to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370,

        382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A 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); see United States v.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4236      Doc: 39          Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (discussing assumed error harmlessness

        inquiry).

               Here, the district court explicitly stated that it would have given Forrest a 216-month

        sentence even if it had incorrectly calculated the Guidelines range. Because the “court

        made it abundantly clear that it would have imposed the same sentence . . . regardless of

        the advice of the Guidelines,” Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 382, we conclude that the first

        prong of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is satisfied.

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

        reasonable, taking into account the Guidelines range that would have applied absent the

        assumed errors. Mills, 917 F.3d at 331. To be substantively reasonable, a sentence must

        be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a). In reviewing a sentence 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).

               Forrest’s 216-month sentence is a little more than 50% longer than the high end of

        the assumed Guidelines range. As the district court explained, such an upward variance

        was warranted in light of the serious nature of the drug involved, the detrimental effect of

        Forrest’s crime on his community, and Forrest’s disrespect for the law, as indicated by his

        lengthy criminal history, poor performance on supervision, and repeated violations of the

        law even after previously being shown leniency in sentencing. Thus, we conclude that

        Forrest’s sentence would be substantively reasonable even if the Guidelines issue had been

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4236      Doc: 39        Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        resolved in his favor and, consequently, that the purported miscalculation of Forrest’s

        Guidelines range is harmless.

              Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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