Court Opinion

ID: 9409160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-15 21:00:25.384896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.146812
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629      Doc: 35         Filed: 07/14/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-4629

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DOMINIQUE SHANTAE LYTCH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00565-WO-1)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: July 14, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Renorda Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, High Point, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629      Doc: 35          Filed: 07/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Dominique Shantae Lytch pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846.

        The district court sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment and a five-year term of

        supervised release. On appeal, Lytch’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

        Lytch has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court erred in its

        calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a two-level enhancement under

        U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2018), for possessing a firearm during

        the offense. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm.

               Because Lytch did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of

        the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621,

        622 (4th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018)

        (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Lytch

        entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the

        plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning

        no plain error, we conclude that Lytch’s guilty plea is valid.

               We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential

        abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review

        entails consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

        Id. at 51. In determining procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court

        properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629      Doc: 35          Filed: 07/14/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and

        sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors,

        then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of

        the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it

        “is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “presumption can

        only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the

        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

               Lytch challenges the two-level firearm enhancement pursuant to USSG

        § 2D1.1(b)(1), arguing that the weapon was not in his immediate possession and that

        someone else possessed it. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error

        and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir.

        2018). We conclude that, based on the findings of the presentence report adopted by the

        district court and the testimony presented at Lytch’s sentencing hearing, the court did not

        err in applying the enhancement.

               The district court also allowed Lytch to allocute and afforded counsel an opportunity

        to argue for an appropriate sentence. After considering the parties’ arguments and Lytch’s

        statement, the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        factors, the court determined that a 210-month sentence was warranted based on the

        circumstances of Lytch’s offense conduct, his history and characteristics, and the need for

        the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, to reflect the seriousness of the

        offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from

        further crimes by Lytch. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). The court’s explanation

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629         Doc: 35      Filed: 07/14/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        was sufficient to support the imposition of Lytch’s within-Guidelines sentence, and Lytch

        does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it. Lytch’s sentence is

        procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no abuse of discretion in

        the district court’s imposition of the 210-month prison term.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lytch, in writing, of the right to petition

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

               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