US v. Joshua Hood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to withdraw/relieve/substitute counsel [999838138-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00092-IMK-MJA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930715].. [16-4109]

Appeal: 16-4109

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA HOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00092-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda
Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4109

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joshua

Hood

pornography,

18

pled

guilty

U.S.C.

§

to

transportation

2252(A)(a)(1),

(b)(1)

of

child

(2012).

district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment.

The

Counsel

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal, but questioning the validity of Hood’s guilty
plea and the reasonableness of the sentence.

Hood has filed a pro

se supplemental brief, addressing these same issues.

We affirm.

We have reviewed the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, and we conclude that Hood’s guilty plea were knowing
and voluntary.

Accordingly, we affirm Hood’s conviction.

We review Hood’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

Gall v. United States,

We must first determine whether the

district court committed significant procedural error, such as
incorrect

calculation

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

range,

inadequate consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 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 the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.”
552 U.S. at 51.

Gall,

The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not

greater than necessary,” to satisfy the goals of sentencing.
2

See

Appeal: 16-4109

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We presume on appeal that a within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable.
756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Louthian,

Hood bears the burden to rebut

this presumption “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”

Id.

Our review of the record reveals that Hood’s sentence is
reasonable. *

The

district

court

properly

calculated

Hood’s

Guidelines range as 240 months, heard arguments from both parties,
considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
explained its rationale for the sentence it imposed.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Hood’s conviction and sentence.
prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw.

We

We deny without

This court requires that

counsel inform Hood, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Hood

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court

*

Although the two-level increase to Hood’s offense level
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.1 (2015), was
erroneously applied, we find this error harmless.
See United
States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir. 2010) (sentencing
error is harmless if resulting sentence is no longer than sentence
to which defendant would otherwise be subject). Hood’s properly
calculated advisory Guidelines range without this increase exceeds
the statutory maximum sentence for this offense; thus, Hood’s
Guidelines range of 240 months is unchanged.
3

Appeal: 16-4109

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Hood.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4