Court Opinion

ID: 9374409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:36.834976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.993234
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4471      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4471

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTHONY RASHAWN STUDIVENT,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00425-CCE-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester III, LESTER LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4471      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Anthony Rashawn Studivent appeals the 60-month sentence imposed by the district

        court following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a

        crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, Studivent contends that the district court erred in

        calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a four-level

        enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2018), based

        on the court’s finding that Studivent possessed a firearm in connection with another felony

        offense, that is, assault with a deadly weapon. Because any error in the application of the

        enhancement was harmless, we affirm.

               Rather than review the merits of Studivent’s challenge to the calculation of his

        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).     “To apply this assumed error harmlessness inquiry we require

        (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had

        decided the [G]uidelines issue the other way and (2) a determination that the sentence

        would be [substantively] reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the

        defendant’s favor.” United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal

        quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Shivers, 56 F.4th 320, 327 (4th Cir. 2022).

        An error will be deemed harmless only when we are “certain” that these inquiries are met.

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

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4471      Doc: 22          Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

               Here, the district court’s comments during the sentencing hearing and in the

        Statement of Reasons convince us that it would have imposed the same 60-month sentence

        even if it had not applied the four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). We

        thus conclude that the first requirement of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is

        satisfied. See Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 383.

               Next, we must assess whether Studivent’s sentence would be substantively

        reasonable even if the district court had sustained his objection to the four-level

        enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Had the district court done so, Studivent’s

        Guidelines range would have been 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment rather than 37 to 46

        months’ imprisonment. Under both Guidelines ranges, Studivent’s 60-month sentence

        constitutes an upward-variant sentence.

               In reviewing an upward-variant sentence for substantive reasonableness, “we

        consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to

        impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing

        range.” United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944 (4th Cir. 2014). We afford “due

        deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,

        justify the extent of the variance, and the fact that we might reasonably have concluded

        that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district

        court.” United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 346 (4th Cir. 2010). Our ultimate inquiry

        is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the district court “abused its

        discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in

        § 3553(a).” United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4471      Doc: 22         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

               We are satisfied that the 60-month sentence imposed by the district court is

        substantively reasonable even under an assumed Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months.

        Indeed, the district court adequately explained why a 60-month sentence was necessary

        using the § 3553(a) factors. In particular, the district court emphasized that Studivent has

        a significant criminal history, including a prior conviction in state court for possession of

        a firearm as a felon that resulted in Studivent serving more than 10 years in prison. The

        district court was appropriately concerned that Studivent’s lengthy sentence for that

        conviction did not deter him from again possessing a firearm. Because Studivent’s

        60-month sentence is supported by the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a)

        factors, we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable.

               For those reasons, we are satisfied that any Guidelines calculation error in these

        proceedings was harmless. See McDonald, 850 F.3d at 645. Accordingly, we 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

                                                     4