US v. Lance Richardson Pagan
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00258-RJC-8 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788599].. [15-4492]
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4492
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LANCE RICHARDSON PAGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00258-RJC-8)
Submitted:
January 19, 2016
Decided:
April 5, 2016
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Wood, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Lance
Richardson
Pagan
pled
guilty
pursuant
to
a
plea
agreement to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
The
district
the
court
calculated
Pagan’s
Guidelines
range
under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2014) at 70 to 87 months’
imprisonment and sentenced Pagan to 84 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
stating
that
there
are
no
meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as issues for review
whether the district court reversibly erred in accepting Pagan’s
guilty
plea,
whether
trial
counsel
rendered
ineffective
assistance, whether the district court abused its discretion in
imposing
sentence,
misconduct.
not
seek
agreement. *
whether
the
prosecution
engaged
in
Pagan has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
several issues.
does
and
The Government elected not to file a brief and
to
enforce
the
appeal
waiver
in
Pagan’s
plea
We affirm.
*
Because the Government fails to assert the waiver as a bar
to the appeal, we may consider the issues raised by counsel and
Pagan and conduct an independent review of the record pursuant
to Anders.
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271
(4th Cir. 2007).
2
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Because
Pagan
did
not
Pg: 3 of 6
move
in
the
district
court
to
withdraw his guilty plea, the acceptance of his guilty plea is
reviewed
for
plain
277 F.3d
517,
error
524-26
(4th
only.
Cir.
2002).
error, a defendant must show:
error
was
rights.
the
plain;
and
(3)
the
United
States
To
v.
Martinez,
demonstrate
plain
(1) there was error; (2) the
error
affected
his
substantial
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
guilty
plea
context,
a
defendant
meets
his
burden
In
to
establish that a plain error affected his substantial rights by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
guilty
but
omissions.
for
the
United
district
States
v.
court’s
Fed.
Massenburg,
R.
564
Crim.
F.3d
P.
337,
11
343
(4th Cir. 2009).
Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing
leads us to conclude that the magistrate judge’s omissions did
not
affect
Pagan’s
substantial
rights.
Additionally,
the
transcripts of the guilty plea and sentencing hearings reveal
that the magistrate judge and district court ensured that the
plea was supported by an independent basis in fact and that
Pagan
entered
the
plea
knowingly
understanding of the consequences.
and
voluntarily
with
an
Accordingly, we discern no
plain error in the district court’s acceptance of Pagan’s guilty
plea.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120
(4th Cir. 1991).
3
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Next,
we
decline
assistance
of
counsel.
conclusively
appears
to
Pg: 4 of 6
reach
Pagan’s
Unless
on
the
an
face
claim
attorney’s
of
the
of
ineffective
ineffectiveness
record,
ineffective
assistance claims generally are not addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective
assistance
by
inappropriate
Pagan’s
for
trial
resolution
counsel,
on
direct
we
deem
this
appeal.
See
claim
United
States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
Turning
to
reasonableness
standard.”
This
84-month
“under
a
sentence,
deferential
we
review
it
for
abuse-of-discretion
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007).
review
procedural
Pagan’s
entails
and
appellate
substantive
consideration
reasonableness
of
of
both
the
the
sentence.
court
properly
Id. at 51.
After
determining
whether
the
district
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range and gave
the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,
we consider whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
(2012)
factors
and
any
arguments
presented
by
the
parties, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,
and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id. at 49-51.
If the sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” we
review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, “tak[ing]
4
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 5 of 6
into account the totality of the circumstances.”
Id. at 51.
Any sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines
range
is
presumptively
substantively
reasonable.
United
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
Such a presumption can only be rebutted
by a showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.
Id.
In this case, the district court did not reversibly err in
calculating
the
Guidelines
range
and
properly
from counsel and allocution from Pagan.
heard
argument
The court explained
that the 84-month sentence was warranted in light of Pagan’s
history
and
characteristics
and
the
nature
of
his
offense
conduct and the need for the sentence to promote respect for the
law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and
protect the public from further crimes by Pagan.
Pagan does not
offer any grounds to rebut the presumption on appeal that his
within-Guidelines
sentence
is
substantively
reasonable.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Pagan.
Next, we review for plain error a prosecutorial misconduct
claim not raised or presented in the district court.
States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 689 (4th Cir. 2005).
United
To succeed
on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show
that the prosecutor engaged in improper conduct and that such
5
Appeal: 15-4492
Doc: 29
Filed: 04/05/2016
Pg: 6 of 6
conduct “prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights so as to
deny the defendant a fair trial.”
record
and
find
no
improper
Id.
We have reviewed the
conduct
on
the
part
of
the
prosecutor that prejudiced Pagan.
Finally, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder
of
supplemental
appeal.
We
the
record
brief
and
therefore
in
have
affirm
this
found
the
case
no
and
Pagan’s
meritorious
district
court’s
pro
issues
se
for
judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Pagan, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.
If Pagan requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Pagan.
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
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?