United States v. Reginal Alexander
693 F. App'x 192
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Reginal Brian Alexander pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 and was sentenced to 262 months within the Guidelines range.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but raised three potential issues: applicability of appellate waiver, adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy, and denial of a variance.
- Alexander filed a pro se brief arguing the district court erred in treating a prior South Carolina marijuana distribution conviction as a controlled-substance offense and as a career-offender predicate.
- The Government did not move to enforce the appellate waiver; the Fourth Circuit therefore conducted an Anders review.
- Court reviewed Rule 11 and career-offender predicate issues for plain error because Alexander did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise preserve those challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate waiver bars Anders review | Alexander: waiver should not bar appellate consideration | Government: did not seek to invoke waiver | Court: waiver not invoked; Anders review proceeds |
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy | Alexander: plea colloquy had omissions that affected his substantial rights | Government: colloquy substantially complied with Rule 11; omissions were minor | Court: no plain error; substantial compliance and no reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty |
| Denial of variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Alexander: requested variance (argued for lesser sentence) | Government/district court: denied variance to avoid unwarranted disparities; sentence within Guidelines | Court: affirmed denial as reasonable; within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable |
| Use of prior S.C. marijuana distribution conviction as career-offender predicate | Alexander: S.C. definition of "distribute" broader than Guidelines, so conviction not a predicate | Government/district court: S.C. statutory definitions align with federal definitions of distribute/deliver | Court: no plain error; state definitions substantially mirror federal ones, conviction qualified as controlled-substance offense and career-offender predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel’s Anders brief when asserting appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (government must invoke appellate waiver to bar appeal)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review for Rule 11 when plea withdrawal not sought)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for Rule 11 error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review and consideration of § 3553(a))
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (substantive-reasonableness review looks to totality of circumstances and § 3553(a))
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2017) (plain-error review applies to unpreserved career-offender predicate challenges)