United States v. Eric Dudley ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC KAREEM DUDLEY, a/k/a E-Dub,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cr-00198-BO-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2020 Decided: December 2, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter H. Paramore, III, LAW OFFICES OF W. H. PARAMORE, III, Jacksonville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Kareem Dudley pleaded guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute and distribute a quantity of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Dudley’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 Dudley’s sentence is procedurally
and substantively reasonable. Although notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, Dudley has not done so. We affirm. *
We “review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the
Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Our review of Dudley’s sentence requires consideration of both
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected
sentence. Id. “Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below, or within-
Guidelines sentence, it must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the
*
Because the Government has not moved to enforce the appellate waiver in
Dudley’s plea agreement, we conduct a full review pursuant to Anders. See United States
v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
particular facts of the case before it.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330
(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
If there is no “significant procedural error,” we next evaluate the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “[W]e are obliged to apply a presumption of reasonableness to a
sentence within or below a properly calculated guidelines range. That presumption can
only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357-58 (4th Cir. 2017)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Dudley neither objected to the district court’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines calculation nor argued for a sentence different than that imposed by the district
court, we review Dudley’s sentence for plain error. United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572,
577, 580 (4th Cir. 2010). Under the plain error standard, we “will correct an unpreserved
error if (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 this case, the district court erred by failing to provide an explanation for the 220-
month sentence it imposed on Dudley. We conclude, however, that this error did not affect
Dudley’s substantial rights. Because Dudley received a downward variance, the district
court’s inadequate explanation “did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence
on the result” of the sentencing proceeding. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 585 (internal quotation
3
marks omitted). Furthermore, the district court reviewed the nature and circumstances of
the offense and Dudley’s criminal history before imposing a sentence below the low end
of the applicable Guidelines range, demonstrating that it was aware of and considered the
pertinent § 3553(a) factors. Finally, Dudley has failed to rebut the presumption that his
below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found
no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court requires that counsel inform Dudley, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dudley 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 Dudley. 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