US v. Davares Archie


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00667-JFA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999904177].. [15-4669]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4669 Doc: 33 Filed: 08/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVARES ANTONIO ARCHIE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00667-JFA-1) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 4, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4669 Doc: 33 Filed: 08/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Davares Antonio Archie appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). of cocaine base, in 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 questioning (1) whether the district court erred in accepting Archie’s guilty plea, and (2) whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Archie was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must conduct a colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalties he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court must ensure that the defendant’s plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). 2 Fed. Appeal: 15-4669 Doc: 33 Filed: 08/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 5 Because Archie did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise preserve error in the plea proceedings, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir. United States v. 2009). Archie establishes plain error by demonstrating that (1) the district court erred, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. 1121, 1126 (2013). Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. In the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes that an error affected his substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable probability that he would not have entered his plea but for the error. Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 427 (4th United States v. Aplicano- Cir. 2015). Even if these requirements are met, we will “correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in conducting the plea colloquy. Although the court made minor omissions during the colloquy, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(K), (O), the record provides no basis to conclude that these errors affected Archie’s rights. See Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d at 427. we that note the plea agreement substantial Further, while mischaracterized the drug weights involved in the conspiracy offense with which Archie was 3 Appeal: 15-4669 Doc: 33 charged, we Filed: 08/04/2016 conclude the Pg: 4 of 5 record otherwise demonstrates that Archie’s guilty plea to the charged offense was both knowing and voluntary. We review Archie’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). standard.” Gall v. United We must first determine whether the district court committed significant procedural error, such as incorrect of the Sentencing consideration inadequate calculation of the 18 U.S.C. Guidelines range, § 3553(a) (2012) factors, or insufficient explanation of the sentence imposed. United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014). If we find no procedural error, we also examine the substantive reasonableness of circumstances.” the sentence under “the Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. totality of the The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing. on appeal that a See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). within-Guidelines sentence is We presume substantively reasonable. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). Archie bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by that showing the sentence is unreasonable against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” when measured Id. Our review of the record reveals that Archie’s sentence is reasonable. The district court properly calculated Archie’s Guidelines range, heard sentencing arguments from both parties, 4 Appeal: 15-4669 and Doc: 33 Filed: 08/04/2016 explained Although its the rationale court’s Pg: 5 of 5 for the explanation sentence was not it imposed. lengthy, it specifically referenced the § 3553(a) factors and was sufficient to justify its decision to sentence Archie to the statutory minimum — the precise sentence requested by both Archie and the Government. Further, Archie fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Archie, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Archie 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 Archie. 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 5

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?