United States v. David Long ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4055
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID SHAUN LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cr-00653-TLW-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 30, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derek J. Enderlin, ROSS & ENDERLIN, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Shaun Long pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(c), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Long to 200 months’
imprisonment, within the 188- to 235-month advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On
appeal, 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 the district
court’s compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the
reasonableness of the sentence. Long was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not filed one. The Government declined to file a brief.
Because Long did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we
review the guilty plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517,
525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Long] must show that an error occurred,
that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” United States
v. Muhammad, 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). Even if Long satisfies these
requirements, “correction of the error remains within our discretion, which we should not
exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Our review
of the record leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with Rule
11 in accepting Long’s guilty plea, which Long entered knowingly and voluntarily.
Turning to Long’s sentence, we review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
2
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We must first ensure that the district court did not commit any
“significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable
Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors,
or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Id. If we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable, we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. at 328. We presume on
appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively
reasonable. United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 176 (4th Cir. 2014). “That
presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when
measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357-
58 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Upon review, we discern no procedural or substantive sentencing error by the
district court. The district court correctly calculated Long’s advisory Guidelines range,
heard argument from counsel, provided Long an opportunity to allocute, and considered
the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Long’s
within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In accordance with
Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Long, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Long 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 Long. We dispense with oral
3
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