US v. John Davis, IV

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00360-CCE-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538664].. [14-4521]

Appeal: 14-4521

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4521

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN GUY DAVIS, IV,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00360-CCE-2)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth Neyhart, Chapel Hill, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4521

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
John Guy Davis, IV, pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 (2012), and was sentenced
to twenty-nine months in prison.

Davis’s attorney has filed a

brief

v.

in

accordance

with

Anders

California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether Davis’s plea was knowing and voluntary
and his sentence reasonable.

Davis has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief despite receiving notice of his right to do
so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Because Davis did not move in the district court to
withdraw his 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, Davis must show:

(1) there

was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected
his substantial rights.

Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct.

1121, 1126-27 (2013); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993).

In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this

burden by “show[ing] a reasonable probability that, but for the
error, he would not have entered the plea.”

United States v.

Massenburg,

2009)

quotation

564

marks

F.3d

337,

omitted).

343
We

(4th

have
2

Cir.

reviewed

Davis’s

(internal
Fed.

R.

Appeal: 14-4521

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Crim. P. 11 hearing transcript and conclude that the district
court

complied

with

Rule

11,

that

Davis’s

guilty

plea

was

knowing and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for
the plea.

Accordingly, we affirm Davis’s conviction.
We
an

applying
States,

review

abuse-of-discretion

552

U.S.

consideration

of

Davis’s

38,

46,

both

sentence

51

the

district

court

Id. at 51.

properly

Gall

This

procedural

reasonableness of the sentence.
whether

reasonableness,

standard.

(2007).

the

for

v.

review
and

United
requires

substantive

We first assess

calculated

the

advisory

Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)

(2012),

analyzed

any

arguments

presented

by

the

parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

Id.

at 49–51; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th
Cir. 2010).
sentence

If we find no procedural error, we review the

for

substantive

reasonableness,

totality of the circumstances[.]”

“examin[ing]

the

United States v. Mendoza–

Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

“Any sentence that

is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
presumptively

[substantively]

reasonable”

and

“[s]uch

a

presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is
unreasonable
factors.”

when

measured

against

the

18

U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
3

Appeal: 14-4521

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that Davis’s sentence is procedurally and
substantively

reasonable.

The

district

court

correctly

calculated Davis’s Guidelines range, granted Davis’s motion for
a downward variance, and adequately explained its reasons for
imposing

the

twenty-nine-month

variant

sentence.

Thus,

we

affirm Davis’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires counsel to inform Davis, in writing, of the right to
petition
review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

this

court

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on Davis.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4