United States v. Dwayne Anderson
16-4666
| 4th Cir. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Dwayne Jerome Anderson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute crack and powder cocaine in violation of federal law.
- At sentencing the district court designated Anderson a career offender and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 151–188 months; the court imposed 151 months (the bottom of the range).
- Anderson’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning Rule 11 plea colloquy compliance, career-offender classification, and sentence reasonableness; Anderson filed a pro se brief raising additional claims.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed Rule 11 and the career-offender classification for plain error, and reviewed the CDVHAN classification de novo.
- The court affirmed: it found substantial compliance with Rule 11, upheld career-offender status based on convictions for distribution of crack and pointing/presenting a firearm, and held the within-Guidelines sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 plea colloquy adequacy | Anderson contends the court may not have fully complied with Rule 11 requirements | Government argues the colloquy substantially complied and any omissions were harmless | Substantial compliance found; any minor omissions did not affect substantial rights (plain-error review) |
| Career-offender classification | Anderson argues his priors should not support career-offender status | Government contends he has at least two qualifying prior felonies (distribution and pointing/presenting firearm) | Affirmed: distribution = controlled-substance offense; pointing/presenting firearm = crime of violence; career-offender status proper |
| Status of CDVHAN as predicate | Anderson challenges whether CDVHAN is a crime of violence | Government defends predicate classification | Court did not resolve CDVHAN issue because other predicates sufficed to uphold career-offender designation |
| Sentence reasonableness | Anderson argues sentence is excessive/unreasonable | Government defends within-Guidelines sentence as reasonable and supported by § 3553(a) factors | Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to assert appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 plea colloquy requirements)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (effect of Rule 11 errors on substantial rights)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (pointing and presenting a firearm is a crime of violence)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 review)
- United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2017) (standards for reviewing career-offender classification)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)