United States v. Preston Potts
660 F. App'x 231
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Preston Potts pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone under 21 U.S.C. § 841.
- Sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment following a Guidelines calculation that included a role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but asked the court to consider whether the role-enhancement was procedurally erroneous.
- Potts did not file a pro se supplemental brief; the Government did not file a responsive appellate brief.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record for procedural and substantive reasonableness and for any meritorious issues under Anders.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ordered counsel to advise Potts of certiorari rights, and allowed counsel to move to withdraw if a certiorari petition would be frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) role enhancement | Potts challenged the enhancement as procedurally erroneous | Government (and court below) supported enhancement based on defendant's role evidence | Court held enhancement was properly applied; no procedural error |
| Whether the within-Guidelines 121-month sentence was procedurally reasonable | Potts argued sentence may be procedurally flawed | Government argued sentence was within properly calculated Guidelines range and supported by § 3553(a) factors | Court found no procedural error; sentencing explanation adequate |
| Whether the within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable | Potts implied sentence might be substantively unreasonable given circumstances | Government maintained sentence was presumptively reasonable and justified by § 3553(a) factors | Court held sentence substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether any meritorious appellate issues exist under Anders | Counsel asserted no non-frivolous issues besides the role enhancement question | Government did not identify issues | Court conducted independent review, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (appellate review standard for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing within-Guidelines sentences)