Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) John Guy Davis, IV pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 29 months in prison. 2) The appellate court reviewed Davis's guilty plea and sentencing and found no errors. It determined that Davis's plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    41 views4 pages
    1) John Guy Davis, IV pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 29 months in prison. 2) The appellate court reviewed Davis's guilty plea and sentencing and found no errors. It determined that Davis's plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-03-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4521

    Original Title

    United States v. John Davis, IV, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) John Guy Davis, IV pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 29 months in prison. 2) The appellate court reviewed Davis's guilty plea and sentencing and found no errors. It determined that Davis's plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    41 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) John Guy Davis, IV pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 29 months in prison. 2) The appellate court reviewed Davis's guilty plea and sentencing and found no errors. It determined that Davis's plea was knowing and voluntary and that the district court properly calculated the sentencing guidelines and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. 3) The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no meritorious issues for appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4521

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN GUY DAVIS, IV,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00360-CCE-2)

    Submitted:

    February 25, 2015

    Decided:

    March 3, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Seth Neyhart, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John Guy Davis, IV, pled guilty pursuant to a plea
    agreement to conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of
    21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 (2012), and was sentenced
    to twenty-nine months in prison.

    Daviss attorney has filed a

    brief

    v.

    in

    accordance

    with

    Anders

    California,

    386

    U.S.

    738

    (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,


    but questioning whether Daviss plea was knowing and voluntary
    and his sentence reasonable.

    Davis has not filed a pro se

    supplemental brief despite receiving notice of his right to do


    so, and the Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    Because Davis did not move in the district court to
    withdraw his plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain
    error.

    United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.

    2002).

    To establish plain error, Davis must show:

    (1) there

    was error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected
    his substantial rights.

    Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct.

    1121, 1126-27 (2013); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
    (1993).

    In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this

    burden by show[ing] a reasonable probability that, but for the


    error, he would not have entered the plea.

    United States v.

    Massenburg,

    2009)

    quotation

    564

    marks

    F.3d

    337,

    omitted).

    343
    We

    (4th

    have
    2

    Cir.

    reviewed

    Daviss

    (internal
    Fed.

    R.

    Crim. P. 11 hearing transcript and conclude that the district


    court

    complied

    with

    Rule

    11,

    that

    Daviss

    guilty

    plea

    was

    knowing and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for
    the plea.

    applying
    States,

    Accordingly, we affirm Daviss conviction.


    We

    review

    an

    abuse-of-discretion

    552

    U.S.

    consideration

    of

    Daviss

    38,

    46,

    both

    sentence

    51

    the

    district

    court

    Id. at 51.

    properly

    Gall

    This

    procedural

    reasonableness of the sentence.


    whether

    reasonableness,

    standard.

    (2007).

    the

    for

    v.

    review
    and

    United
    requires

    substantive

    We first assess

    calculated

    the

    advisory

    Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.


    3553(a)

    (2012),

    analyzed

    any

    arguments

    presented

    by

    the

    parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.

    Id.

    at 4951; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 57576 (4th
    Cir. 2010).
    sentence

    If we find no procedural error, we review the

    for

    substantive

    reasonableness,

    totality of the circumstances[.]

    examin[ing]

    the

    United States v. Mendoza

    Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).

    Any sentence that

    is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is


    presumptively

    [substantively]

    reasonable

    and

    [s]uch

    presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is


    unreasonable
    factors.

    when

    measured

    against

    the

    18

    U.S.C.

    3553(a)

    United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th

    Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).


    3

    We conclude that Daviss sentence is procedurally and


    substantively

    reasonable.

    The

    district

    court

    correctly

    calculated Daviss Guidelines range, granted Daviss motion for


    a downward variance, and adequately explained its reasons for
    imposing

    the

    twenty-nine-month

    variant

    sentence.

    Thus,

    we

    affirm Daviss sentence.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.

    This court

    requires counsel to inform Davis, in writing, of the right to


    petition
    review.

    the

    Supreme

    Court

    of

    the

    United

    States

    for

    further

    If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

    believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel


    may

    move

    in

    this

    court

    to

    withdraw

    from

    representation.

    Counsels motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
    on Davis.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before


    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like