Court Opinion

ID: 9831298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:23.087826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.611755
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723      Doc: 43         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4723

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        TRAYVON HALL, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a G-Tru,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00568-RDB-2)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dallas F. Kratzer III, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Columbus, Ohio, for
        Appellant. Peter Jeffrey Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723       Doc: 43         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Trayvon Hall pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement,

        to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

        (Count 1), and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or

        more of heroin and 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 (Count 2). Hall and the Government agreed that Hall should

        be sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment on Count 2 and a concurrent term of 240

        months’ imprisonment on Count 1. The parties also agreed that Hall’s sentence should be

        adjusted to account for time that he had served in federal prison for a separate offense. The

        district court accepted the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and sentenced Hall to 454 months

        and 13 days of imprisonment on Count 2 and a concurrent term of 240 months of

        imprisonment on Count 1. The district court also imposed a five-year term of supervised

        release on Count 2 and a concurrent three-year term of supervised release on Count 1.

               On appeal, Hall’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 Hall’s guilty plea is valid and whether Hall’s sentence is reasonable. As to Hall’s

        sentence, Hall’s counsel questions whether the district court properly considered certain

        conduct when imposing sentence, including the conduct of Hall’s coconspirators and Hall’s

        conduct related to dismissed charges, and whether an unwarranted disparity exists between

        Hall’s sentence and the sentences of his coconspirators. Hall has filed a pro se brief making

        three arguments: (1) his guilty plea to Count 1 is invalid because the district court failed to

        adequately explain the elements of that offense, and because the written factual basis is

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723       Doc: 43          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 6

        insufficient to support his conviction on that count; (2) a conflict exists between the district

        court’s oral pronouncement of his prison sentence and the written judgment’s description

        thereof; and (3) his counsel in the district court rendered ineffective assistance by failing

        to pursue the preceding arguments. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal

        pursuant to the appellate waiver in Hall’s plea agreement. For the reasons stated below,

        we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

        within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record, including the plea

        agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Hall

        knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

        Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal

        as to all issues within the scope of the appellate waiver, including the sentencing issues

        raised in the Anders brief.

               Although Hall’s appellate waiver covers his right to appeal his conviction, it does

        not preclude our review of the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895

        F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir.

        1994). We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss. Because Hall did

        not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for

        plain error only. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). And we

        conclude that Hall is not entitled to relief from his guilty plea under the plain-error standard.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723       Doc: 43          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

        That is, the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 and properly found that Hall’s

        plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. See United

        States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). While Hall contends that

        the district court did not adequately explain the elements of Count 1 and that the written

        factual basis does not support his conviction on that count, neither contention persuades

        us. 1 We are thus satisfied that Hall’s guilty plea is valid.

               Hall also argues that a conflict exists between the district court’s oral

        pronouncement of his sentence of imprisonment and the written judgment’s description

        thereof. Hall claims that the district court orally sentenced him to a total of only 240

        months’ imprisonment and that the written judgment—imposing a total sentence of 454

        months and 13 days of imprisonment—should be amended to reflect that oral

        pronouncement. Assuming that Hall’s argument escapes the appeal waiver, see United

        States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021), we conclude that it is frivolous. Put

               1
                 Hall faults the district court for failing to explain what constitutes “a pattern of
        racketeering activity” before accepting his guilty plea to Count 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5); see
        generally 18 U.S.C. § 1962. But Hall identifies no authority requiring a district court to
        give such advice before accepting a guilty plea to a racketeering conspiracy offense, so any
        error is not “clear or obvious.” United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 516 (4th Cir.
        2013). Moreover, the superseding indictment described “a pattern of racketeering
        activity,” and Hall confirmed at the Rule 11 hearing that he read and understood the charges
        against him. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221 (4th Cir. 2005). Hall also
        admitted to many racketeering activities when he agreed that the written factual basis was
        accurate. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). We are thus satisfied that, even if the district court
        plainly erred, that error did not affect Hall’s substantial rights. See United States v.
        Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Hall further contends that he admitted to only
        one racketeering activity, so there is an insufficient factual basis for his guilty plea to
        Count 1. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). But, as just explained, the record refutes his contention.

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723      Doc: 43          Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

        simply, there is no conflict between the district court’s oral pronouncement of Hall’s prison

        sentence and the written judgment’s description of that sentence.

               Finally, Hall asserts that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

        to challenge his guilty plea to Count 1 and by neglecting to argue that a conflict exits

        between the oral pronouncement of his sentence and the written judgment. We do not

        consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s

        ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United States v. Faulls,

        821 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 2016). “Because there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective

        assistance on the face of this record, we conclude that [Hall’s] claim should be raised, if at

        all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. at 508.

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

        found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal that are outside of the appellate waiver

        or not waivable by law. 2 We therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss

        and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the appellate waiver. We also deny in

               2
                 We observe that the parties agreed in the plea agreement that a four-year term of
        supervised release was sufficient for Count 2, but the district court imposed a five-year
        term on that count. Notwithstanding, the plea agreement reflects that the parties’
        recommendation on the supervised release term was not binding on the district court.
        Moreover, although the Government agreed in the plea agreement to recommend a
        four-year term of supervised release on Count 2 and apparently never did so, we conclude
        that the Government’s failure does not entitle Hall to relief. The record does not show that
        the Government advocated for a different term of supervised release on Count 2, and the
        presentence report described the Government’s obligation to make a four-year
        recommendation as to Count 2, so the district court was aware of it. See United States v.
        Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210-11 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Smith 140 F.3d 1325, 1327
        (10th Cir. 1998).

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4723         Doc: 43        Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 6 of 6

        part the motion to dismiss and affirm as to any issue not precluded by the appellate waiver.

        At this juncture, we deny Hall’s counsel’s request to withdraw.

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

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

               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 IN PART AND
                                                                            DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      6