US v. Eric Ezekial Hutchinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00328-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999972028].. [16-4148]

Appeal: 16-4148

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC EZEKIAL HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Carl Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00328-NCT-1)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

November 21, 2016

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY, PC, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4148

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Eric Ezekial Hutchinson appeals his conviction and 43-month
sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon.

On appeal, counsel for Hutchinson

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),
appeal

asserting
but

sentence.

that

addressing

there
the

are

no

validity

of

meritorious

issues

Hutchinson’s

plea

for
and

Hutchinson did not file a supplemental pro se brief,

and the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders
brief.

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through
colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and
determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which
the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various
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 district court also must ensure that the defendant’s

plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis,
and

did

not

result

from

force,

contained in the plea agreement.
(3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20.

threats,

or

promises

not

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2),
We conclude that the district

court correctly found Hutchinson’s plea knowing and voluntary
and that Hutchinson has not established plain error in his Rule
11 hearing.
2

Appeal: 16-4148

Doc: 22

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Turning to Hutchinson’s sentence, we review a sentence for
procedural

and

substantive

reasonableness,

abuse-of-discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).

applying

an

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

We must first ensure that the district court did

not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing
to

properly

range,

failing

sentencing
sentence.
we

calculate

then

to

applicable

consider

factors,
Id.

the

or

the

18

failing

Sentencing

U.S.C.

to

§

Guidelines

3553(a)

adequately

(2012)

explain

the

If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable,

consider

its

substantive

reasonableness.

Id.

We

presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated
Guidelines range, as here, is substantively reasonable.

United

States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
Upon

review,

we

discern

no

procedural

sentencing error by the district court.

or

substantive

Without objection, the

district court correctly calculated Hutchinson’s offense level,
criminal

history,

afforded
arguments
Hutchinson
provided

the

and

parties

concerning
an
an

advisory
an

range.

opportunity

adequate

sentence

The

opportunity

appropriate

the

adequate,

Guidelines

to

allocute.

individualized

to
and

Finally,
explanation

court

present
provided

the

court

for

the

within-Guidelines sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
3

We

Appeal: 16-4148

Doc: 22

therefore
requires

Filed: 11/21/2016

affirm
that

the

district

counsel

inform

Pg: 4 of 4

court’s

judgment.

Hutchinson,

in

This

writing,

court
of

the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further
filed,

review.
but

If

counsel

Hutchinson
believes

requests

that

such

that
a

a

petition

petition

would

be
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 Hutchinson.

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

4