Court Opinion

ID: 9943204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 21:00:39.96707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:30.331570
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610      Doc: 42         Filed: 02/21/2024    Pg: 1 of 7

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4610

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHAEL J. FISHER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00306-SAG-1)

        Submitted: September 7, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2024

        Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony D. Martin, ANTHONY D. MARTIN, PC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
        Appellant. Anatoly Smolkin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610       Doc: 42         Filed: 02/21/2024      Pg: 2 of 7

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael J. Fisher appeals his convictions and the 204-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 400

        grams or more of fentanyl, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (C), 846, and distribution of and possession

        with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),

        (b)(1)(A). Fisher’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the

        district court abused its discretion by denying Fisher’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

        In his pro se briefs, 1 Fisher argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary; that

        the district court lacked jurisdiction; that the court abused its discretion by denying his

        motion to withdraw his guilty plea; that the court erred in determining the applicable drug

        weight when calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range; that Anders counsel

        has rendered ineffective assistance; that the district court plainly erred by applying a two-

        level enhancement for possession of a firearm, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

        § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2018); and that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

        failing to object to that enhancement. 2 The Government has declined to respond to the

        Anders brief or move to enforce the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement.

               1
                 We grant Fisher’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief. We deny his motion
        for other relief.
               2
                 To the extent Fisher argues that the district court erred by failing to grant him
        access to the discovery materials in his case, that argument is plainly meritless.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610       Doc: 42         Filed: 02/21/2024      Pg: 3 of 7

               Turning first to Fisher’s challenge to his guilty plea, a guilty plea is valid if the

        defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleads guilty “with sufficient

        awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” United States v. Fisher,

        711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating the

        constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts look to the totality of the circumstances

        surrounding it, granting the defendant’s solemn declaration of guilt a presumption of

        truthfulness.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

        Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it

        informs the defendant of, and determines he understands, the rights he is relinquishing by

        pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the maximum and any mandatory

        minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The district court also must ensure

        that the plea is voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in

        the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that there is a factual basis for the plea,

        Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Any variance from the requirements of Rule 11 “is harmless

        error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).

               Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Fisher’s plea was knowing,

        voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. The district court substantially

        complied with the requirements of Rule 11, and there is no indication that the few minor

        omissions from its colloquy affected Fisher’s substantial rights. We further conclude that,

        in light of his sworn statements during the Rule 11 hearing, Fisher’s inability to review

        each of the thousands of pages of discovery materials available in his case prior to entering

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610      Doc: 42          Filed: 02/21/2024     Pg: 4 of 7

        his plea did not render his plea invalid. Finally, Fisher’s argument that the district court

        lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case is plainly meritless. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231.

               As to Fisher’s motion to withdraw his plea, we review the denial of such a motion

        for abuse of discretion. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). A

        defendant may withdraw a plea after a court has accepted it if he “can show a fair and just

        reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).

               A district court considers a variety of factors when deciding whether the defendant

        has met his burden, including: (1) whether he provided credible evidence that his plea was

        not knowing or voluntary; (2) whether he credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether

        there was a delay between entering the plea and moving for withdrawal; (4) whether he

        had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) whether the withdrawal of the plea would

        prejudice the Government; and (6) whether the withdrawal would inconvenience the court

        and waste judicial resources. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).

        The first, second, and fourth factors are generally the most significant, United States v.

        Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995), and “a properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea

        colloquy . . . raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding,” Nicholson, 676

        F.3d at 384 (cleaned up). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion by denying Fisher’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

               Moving to Fisher’s sentence, we review criminal sentences for both procedural and

        substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United

        States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). In

        reviewing whether a sentence is reasonable, we must first confirm the district court did not

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610       Doc: 42         Filed: 02/21/2024      Pg: 5 of 7

        commit “significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly

        calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider

        the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or

        failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any

        deviation from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668

        (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When evaluating a sentencing court’s

        calculation of the advisory Guidelines range, this [c]ourt reviews the district court’s factual

        findings, and its judgment regarding factual disputes, for clear error.” United States v.

        Medley, 34 F.4th 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               In his pro se brief, Fisher argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating

        the drug weight for which Fisher was accountable. This argument is meritless. The district

        court sustained Fisher’s objection at sentencing to the inclusion of certain controlled

        substances in the drug weight calculation as not reasonably attributable to him. The district

        court did not clearly err by holding Fisher accountable for the remaining substances

        enumerated in the stipulation of facts included in the plea agreement, particularly when

        Fisher confirmed during the Rule 11 hearing that those amounts were correct.

               Fisher further argues that the district court plainly erred by applying a two-level

        enhancement for possessing a firearm. Based on the facts contained in the presentence

        report—which states that law enforcement seized controlled substances, drug distribution

        paraphernalia, and multiple firearms from three addresses to which Fisher had primary

        access—we discern no plain error in the district court’s application of the enhancement.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610       Doc: 42         Filed: 02/21/2024      Pg: 6 of 7

               Fisher also contends that the district court erred by failing to apply a reduction to

        his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We discern no clear error in the district

        court’s conclusion that Fisher was not entitled to such a reduction. See United States v.

        Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 487-88 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting standard of review); USSG § 3E1.1

        cmt. n.3 (“A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an [acceptance of

        responsibility reduction] as a matter of right.”); id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.5 (noting that sentencing

        judge’s evaluation of acceptance of responsibility “is entitled to great deference on

        review”).

               Finally, Fisher contends that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

        failing to object to the firearm enhancement and that Anders counsel has rendered

        ineffective assistance on appeal. We review de novo an ineffective assistance of counsel

        claim that is made on direct appeal but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in

        the . . . record itself that the defendant was not provided . . . effective representation.”

        United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). The

        current record does not permit such a finding. 3

               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 Fisher, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Fisher requests that a petition be

               3
                 Fisher should bring these claims, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to permit
        sufficient development of the record. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1
        (4th Cir. 2020).

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4610         Doc: 42     Filed: 02/21/2024     Pg: 7 of 7

        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 Fisher.

              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

                                                    7