United States v. Richard Hopkins ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD HOPKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:20-cr-00719-CMC-10)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elliott Bishop Daniels,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Richard Hopkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin, possession with intent
to distribute fentanyl and heroin, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. Hopkins was sentenced to 228 months in prison. Hopkins’ counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising for the court’s consideration the following
issues: (1) whether Hopkins’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was properly conducted and
(2) whether the district court properly calculated the drug quantity. Neither Hopkins nor
the Government has filed a brief. We affirm.
Our review of the plea hearing shows that the proceeding was conducted
substantially in compliance with Rule 11. Moreover, Hopkins knowingly and voluntarily
pled guilty to his offense, and his plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis. We
therefore find no reversible error in the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. Martinez,
277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that when defendant does not seek to withdraw
his guilty plea or otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, review is for plain
error).
Next, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s
calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Hopkins. At sentencing, Hopkins
challenged the testimony of a cooperating witness, asserting that a more conservative
calculation should apply. The district court reduced the drug weight based on Hopkins’
objections, although the decrease was not as large as the one for which Hopkins advocated.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Specifically, the court found the witness to be credible and consistent, and Hopkins does
not dispute that the witness’s testimony, if accepted, supported the court’s calculations.
Thus, the district court did not clearly err in its drug quantity findings. See United States v.
Davis, 918 F.3d 397, 405 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating that, at sentencing, the Government must
prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence).
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 Hopkins, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hopkins 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 Hopkins. 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