United States v. Devon Lunn
707 F. App'x 176
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Devon Lona Lunn pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- District court sentenced Lunn to 87 months’ imprisonment, a below-Guidelines sentence.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief questioning the validity of the plea; the Government declined to file a brief.
- Lunn filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging sentencing calculations (drug-quantity attribution), career-offender status, and disparity.
- Lunn did not move to withdraw her plea in district court; the appeal therefore reviewed the Rule 11 plea colloquy for plain error.
- The Government did not move to enforce an appeal waiver in the plea agreement, so the court considered Lunn’s claims on the merits under Anders review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea (Rule 11) | Lunn generally questions whether her plea was valid. | District court conducted adequate plea colloquy informing Lunn of charges, penalties, and rights. | No plain error; colloquy was sufficient and plea stands. |
| Drug-quantity attribution at sentencing | Lunn argues only March 2015 controlled buy should count. | Court attributed additional drug conduct; Guidelines range recalculated accordingly. | Lunn failed to show error in Guidelines calculation. |
| Career-offender classification | Lunn contends she did not qualify as a career offender. | Court applied career-offender enhancement affecting Guidelines range. | Court’s application stood; no reversible error shown. |
| Substantive reasonableness / disparity of sentence | Lunn argues the sentence produced sentencing disparity and was excessive. | District court imposed an 87-month below-Guidelines sentence, considering §3553(a) factors and harsh effect of career-offender status. | Sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable; presumption in favor of below-Guidelines sentence not rebutted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to brief potentially frivolous appeals)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (requirements for Rule 11 plea colloquy)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review of unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
- United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (effect of appeal waivers and Anders review)
- United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review under §3553(a))
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within- or below-Guidelines sentences)