Court Opinion

ID: 9892192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 21:00:38.514613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:45.938425
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4170      Doc: 42         Filed: 10/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4170

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DEMARIO TYAIR HIMBRY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:21-cr-00045-D-1)

        Submitted: October 17, 2023                                       Decided: October 19, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF W.H. PARAMORE, III,
        Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4170      Doc: 42          Filed: 10/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Demario Tyair Himbry pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted

        felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Himbry to 120

        months of imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant

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

        for appeal, but questioning whether the district court correctly applied a Sentencing

        Guidelines enhancement for possession of the firearm in connection with another felony

        offense. Although he was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Himbry

        has not done so. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence, but

        remand for correction of the judgment.

               We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the

        Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v.

        Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We first must “ensure that

        the district court committed no significant procedural error,” such as improperly

        calculating the Guidelines range, insufficiently considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

        factors, or inadequately explaining the selected sentence. United States v. Fowler, 948

        F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the sentence is

        procedurally sound, we then consider its substantive reasonableness under a deferential

        abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 510 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               When reviewing a district court’s application of the Guidelines, we review the

        district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual conclusions for clear error. United

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4170       Doc: 42        Filed: 10/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        States v. Allen, 909 F.3d 671, 677 (4th Cir. 2018). “[C]lear error exists only when the

        reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

        mistake has been committed.” United States v. Slager, 912 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2019)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Under the Guidelines, a defendant faces a four-level enhancement to his offense

        level if he “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony

        offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2021). A firearm is used

        in connection with another felony offense if it “facilitated, or had the potential of

        facilitating, another felony offense.” USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A). “This requirement is

        satisfied if the firearm had some purpose or effect with respect to the other offense,

        including if the firearm was present for protection or to embolden the actor.” United

        States v. McKenzie-Guide, 671 F.3d 452, 464 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Here, Himbry distributed heroin and fentanyl to another in exchange for the firearm.

        His distribution of the drugs, therefore, had the purpose of his taking possession of the

        firearm. Counsel suggests that the enhancement should not apply because, even though

        Himbry traded the drugs for the firearm, it was not clear whether the transfer occurred

        simultaneously. However, as the district court concluded, whether the exchange occurred

        at the same time is irrelevant to the question of whether the firearm facilitated the

        distribution of the drugs. Himbry would not have distributed the drugs but for his receipt

        of the firearm. The district court thus correctly applied the enhancement in USSG

        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4170       Doc: 42         Filed: 10/19/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

               In addition to the procedural and substantive requirements of sentencing, a district

        court must orally pronounce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the

        sentencing hearing. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020). This

        “requirement . . . gives defendants a chance to object to conditions that are not tailored to

        their individual circumstances and ensures that they will be imposed only after

        consideration of the factors set out in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d).” Id. at 300.

               Here, the district court announced the nonmandatory conditions of supervision at

        the sentencing hearing. However, in imposing the special conditions of supervised release,

        the district court ordered that Himbry must support his “children,” while the written

        judgment instead requires Himbry to support his “dependents.” Therefore, there is a

        conflict between the oral pronouncement of this condition and the written judgment. “To

        the extent of any conflict between [the] written order and the oral sentence, the latter is

        controlling.” United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27, 29 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965). This type of

        conflict can be resolved by allowing the district court “to correct the written judgment so

        that it conforms with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncements.” Id. Thus, we remand

        for the district court to correct the written judgment.

               We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no

        meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Himbry’s conviction and sentence, and

        remand to the district court with instructions to correct the written judgment to conform

        with the court’s oral pronouncement of Himbry’s sentence that Himbry support his

        “children.” This court requires that counsel inform Himbry, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Himbry requests that

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4170         Doc: 42       Filed: 10/19/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        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 Himbry.

               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
                                                                                  AND REMANDED

                                                      5