United States v. Dominique Lytch ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOMINIQUE SHANTAE LYTCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00565-WO-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: July 14, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Renorda Pryor, HERRING LAW CENTER, PLLC, High Point, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Dominique Shantae Lytch pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846.
The district court sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment and a five-year term of
supervised release. On appeal, Lytch’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Lytch has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court erred in its
calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a two-level enhancement under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2018), for possessing a firearm during
the offense. The Government has declined to file a response. We affirm.
Because Lytch did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621,
622 (4th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018)
(discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Lytch
entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the
plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning
no plain error, we conclude that Lytch’s guilty plea is valid.
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review
entails 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 Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. If there are no procedural errors,
then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, evaluating “the totality of
the circumstances.” Id. at 51. A sentence is presumptively substantively reasonable if it
“is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range,” and this “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. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
Lytch challenges the two-level firearm enhancement pursuant to USSG
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), arguing that the weapon was not in his immediate possession and that
someone else possessed it. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error
and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541, 547 (4th Cir.
2018). We conclude that, based on the findings of the presentence report adopted by the
district court and the testimony presented at Lytch’s sentencing hearing, the court did not
err in applying the enhancement.
The district court also allowed Lytch to allocute and afforded counsel an opportunity
to argue for an appropriate sentence. After considering the parties’ arguments and Lytch’s
statement, the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, the court determined that a 210-month sentence was warranted based on the
circumstances of Lytch’s offense conduct, his history and characteristics, and the need for
the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law, to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from
further crimes by Lytch. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C). The court’s explanation
3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4629 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/14/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
was sufficient to support the imposition of Lytch’s within-Guidelines sentence, and Lytch
does not overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded to it. Lytch’s sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we thus discern no abuse of discretion in
the district court’s imposition of the 210-month prison term.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Lytch, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lytch 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 Lytch.
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