Court Opinion

ID: 9929721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:36.138576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:14.384609
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4445

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT HANKARD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00017-CCB-1)

        Submitted: January 22, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Alfred Guillaume III, LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED GUILLAUME III,
        Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445         Doc: 35       Filed: 02/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Hankard, a former detective for the Baltimore City Police Department

        (“BPD”), was convicted by a federal jury of conspiring to commit offenses against the

        United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiring to deprive citizens of civil rights,

        in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; two counts of destruction, alteration, or falsification of

        records in federal investigations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and making false

        declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The district court

        sentenced Hankard to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of

        supervised release.

               On appeal, Hankard’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

        U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

        whether sufficient evidence supports Hankard’s convictions and whether his sentence is

        procedurally and substantively reasonable. Hankard has filed a supplemental pro se brief

        in which he challenges the veracity of certain witnesses’ testimony and the lack of physical

        evidence supporting the Government’s case.           He further asserts that trial counsel

        erroneously advised him not to testify in his own defense. The Government has declined

        to file a response brief. We affirm.

                                                       I

               First, Hankard preserved his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

        his convictions by moving for a judgment of acquittal in the district court. “We review the

        sufficiency of the evidence de novo, sustaining the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the

        light most favorable to the Government, it is supported by substantial evidence.” United

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445       Doc: 35         Filed: 02/02/2024       Pg: 3 of 5

        States v. Wysinger, 64 F.4th 207, 211 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate

        and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs credibility and resolves conflicts in

        the evidence; and if the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury

        decides which interpretation to believe.” Wysinger, 64 F.4th at 211 (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge therefore bears a heavy

        burden, and reversal is warranted only where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Hankard’s arguments,

        we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support each of his five convictions. *

                                                      II

               Turning to Hankard’s sentence, we 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 ‘ensure that the district court

        committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly

        calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,

               *
                 Although Hankard asserts that the Government’s witnesses lied to secure shorter
        sentences, hide their own wrongdoings, and/or protect their employment, “[w]e do not
        assess witness credibility, and we presume that the jury resolved any conflicting evidence
        in the prosecution’s favor.” United States v. Reed, 75 F.4th 396, 401 (4th Cir. 2023)
        (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 4 of 5

        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 this

        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).

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

        We discern no reversible error in the district court’s resolution of Hankard’s objections to

        the presentence report, nor did the court reversibly err by calculating the advisory

        Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The court thoroughly explained its

        reasons for imposing its chosen below Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.

        Although the court acknowledged Hankard’s personal history and his positive

        contributions to society—as outlined by his numerous character witnesses—the court

        weighed these considerations against the “egregious abuse of trust” involved in the

        offenses and the need for general deterrence. In light of the court’s fulsome explanation,

        Hankard fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445         Doc: 35       Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 5 of 5

                                                     III

               Finally, we liberally construe Hankard’s pro se argument that he was not represented

        properly as a claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising

        Hankard not to testify. We do not consider ineffective assistance 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, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). The record demonstrates

        that the district court confirmed that Hankard understood his right to testify was “absolute,”

        and that Hankard nevertheless declined to testify. Because ineffective assistance does not

        “conclusively appear[] on the face of the record,” this claim “should be raised, if at all, in

        a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id.

                                                     IV

               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 district court’s judgment.

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

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

               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