US v. Tyrone Roger

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00049-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031039].. [16-4418]

Appeal: 16-4418

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4418

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYRONE ROGERS, a/k/a Rone,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00049-H-1)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4418

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Tyrone
sentence

Rogers

imposed

appeals

following

his
his

below-Guidelines

guilty

plea

to

108-month

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine
and

cocaine

base,

in

(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012).

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1),

On appeal, Rogers’ counsel filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that
he found no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the
validity of Rogers’ plea and the reasonableness of his sentence.
Rogers was informed that he could file a supplemental pro se
brief, but has not done so.

The Government has not responded to

the Anders brief.
In

accordance

with

record in this case.

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

We review errors raised only on appeal for

plain error.

United States v. Lockhart, 58 F.3d 86, 88 (4th

Cir.

Plain

1995).

error

requires

that

“(1)

an

error

was

committed; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected
[Rogers’]

substantial

rights.”

Id.

An

error

affects

substantial rights if it was prejudicial, meaning “[i]t must
have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, (1993).
At the plea hearing, while the magistrate judge did not
have the plea agreement read in open court, he had a copy of the
agreement, described the essential exchange between the parties,
2

Appeal: 16-4418

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

and confirmed that Rogers understood the plea and consulted with
counsel about it.

Because all parties understood the plea and

the magistrate judge discussed the main purpose of the plea, the
failure to read the agreement in open court did not affect the
outcome of the plea hearing and no reversible error occurred.
Nor did reversible error occur at the sentencing hearing
when the district court did not expressly ask whether Rogers had
read the presentence report or consulted with counsel about it.
After Rogers’ counsel objected to the report, the district court
significantly lowered the Sentencing Guidelines range from the
range in the presentence report.

Accordingly, the error did not

affect Rogers’ sentence, and remand for resentencing would be
fruitless.

See United States v. Garrett, 371 F. App’x 429, 430

(4th Cir. 2010) (No. 09-4953).
Our

review

of

issues for appeal.
judgment.
writing,

the

record

reveals

no

other

meritorious

We therefore affirm the district court’s

This court requires that counsel inform Rogers, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Rogers 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 Rogers.

3

Appeal: 16-4418

Doc: 37

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

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