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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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