Court Opinion

ID: 9397970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:26.674552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.228287
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4209      Doc: 37         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4209

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TROYVON DEVONTAE CARROLL,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00493-D-1)

        Submitted: May 19, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Joshua B. Howard, GAMMON, HOWARD & ZESZOTARSKI, PLLC,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States
        Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4209      Doc: 37         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Troyvon Devontae Carroll pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of

        ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924. ∗ The district

        court imposed a sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment. Carroll appeals, arguing that the

        district court erred at sentencing by applying a cross-reference for attempted murder. See

        U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2A2.1(a), 2K2.1(c)(1)(A), 2X1.1(a) (2018).

        Finding no error, we affirm.

               Rather than evaluating the merits of Carroll’s challenge to the calculation of the

        Sentencing Guidelines range, “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). Under this inquiry, “a Guidelines error is harmless and does not

        warrant vacating the defendant’s sentence if the record shows that (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). The claimed error will be deemed harmless only when we are “certain” that

        these requirements are met. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012).

               ∗
                 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
        Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
        year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Carroll’s offense
        was committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4209      Doc: 37          Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               In this case, the first part of the inquiry is satisfied “because the district court has

        expressly stated in a separate and particular explanation that it would have reached the

        same result” even if it had erred in applying the Guidelines. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at

        383. With respect to the second step of the analysis, we review a sentence for substantive

        reasonableness by “tak[ing] 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 [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957

        F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Carroll neither offers

        any specific challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence nor disputes that

        any error was harmless.

               Here, the district court appropriately balanced Carroll’s offense conduct, criminal

        history, and characteristics with the mitigating factors he presented. The district court

        further explained that the sentence imposed was necessary to incapacitate Carroll and to

        provide just punishment and general deterrence. In light of the district court’s thorough

        discussion of the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that Carroll’s sentence is reasonable.

        Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the district court made a procedural error in

        applying the disputed cross-reference—an issue we do not reach—the error was harmless.

               We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

                                                      3