US v. Davares Archie
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?