Court Opinion

ID: 9375090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:59.337629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.845654
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4412      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4412

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DANZAVIOUS DOLPHUS, a/k/a Dash,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00068-IMK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4412      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Danzavious Dolphus pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court

        sentenced Dolphus to 84 months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the low end of the advisory

        Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Dolphus’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

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

        for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in accepting Dolphus’ guilty plea

        and whether Dolphus’ sentence is reasonable. Dolphus was informed of his right to file a

        pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government declined to file a

        responsive brief. We affirm.

               Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the

        defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

        charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum

        possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by

        pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the

        defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not

        result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of the court’s compliance with Rule 11, we

        “accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated

        colloquy with the defendant.”        United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295

        (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4412      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               Because Dolphus did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we

        review the validity of his guilty plea for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d

        621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, Dolphus must establish that “(1) an error

        was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error

        seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

        United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain

        error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that he would not

        have pled guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v. Sanya, 774

        F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and, discerning

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

               “We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an

        abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of ‘whether [the sentence is] inside, just outside,

        or significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range.’” United States v. Nance, 957

        F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (first alteration in original) (quoting Gall v. United States,

        552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). In performing that review, we must first determine whether the

        district court “committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating the

        Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain

        the chosen sentence.” Id. If “the district court has not committed procedural error,” we

        then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.            Id.   Our substantive

        reasonableness review “takes into account the totality of the circumstances to determine

        whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4412         Doc: 21      Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any

        sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

        [substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted 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) (citation omitted).

               We are satisfied that Dolphus’ sentence of imprisonment is procedurally reasonable.

        The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, adequately considered the

        § 3553(a) factors, provided a meaningful explanation for the sentence that it chose, and

        sufficiently addressed defense counsel’s mitigation arguments. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-

        51. We also conclude that nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of substantive

        reasonableness afforded to Dolphus’ 84-month sentence.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

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

               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