US v. Rodney Everette, No. 13-4527 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4527 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY JARVIS EVERETTE, Defendant -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-00036-CCE-1) Submitted: January 27, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Jarvis Everette pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to distributing 34.84 grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a U.S.C. § 924(c). mandatory run trafficking crime, in violation of 18 The district court sentenced Everette to the minimum months--to months drug sentence applicable consecutively, imprisonment. On for a appeal, to each total counsel offense--60 sentence has of filed a 120 brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether: (1) the district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Everette s guilty plea; (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (3) the district court erred by sentencing Everette to the mandatory minimum sentence. Everette has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he raises several challenges to his sentence. We affirm. I. Counsel complied Because with first Rule Everette 11 questions in withdrew whether accepting his motion the district Everette s to guilty withdraw his court plea. guilty plea, we review any errors at the Rule 11 hearing under the 2 plain error standard. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context ). To establish plain error on appeal, Everette must show: (1) there is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affect[s] substantial rights. Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden by showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the Rule 11 omission. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009). After reviewing the transcript of Everette s guilty plea hearing, we conclude that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 in ensured that Everette s accepting plea was Everette s knowing, supported by a sufficient factual basis. plea, and voluntary, it and Although the court failed to inform Everette of the maximum sentence he faced for the firearm offense, as required by Rule 11(b)(1)(H), omission did not affect his substantial rights. that See Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343 (declining to notice plain error in a case in which the [defendant] never clearly and unmistakably asserted that had he been correctly informed of the sentence he faced, he would, in fact, have pled not (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 guilty and gone to trial II. Counsel next questions whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Everette s trial Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal . . . unless it conclusively appears from the record that defense United counsel States did v. not Benton, (internal quotation marks adequate development of provide 523 effective representation. 424, (4th F.3d omitted). the 435 Rather, record, Cir. to 2008) allow ineffective for assistance claims should generally be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). show Because we conclude that the record does not plainly that Everette s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we will not consider his claim at this juncture. III. Next, both counsel reasonableness of sentences reasonableness for Everette s discretion standard. (2007). court and Everette sentence. under a We question review deferential the criminal abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district fails to properly calculate the defendant s advisory Guidelines range or does not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 4 factors. See id. at 49-51. If we find no significant procedural error, we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Id. at 51. A. Everette argues that the district court violated Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), which held that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury and charged in the indictment, see id. at 2155. Specifically, Everette argues that the district court erred by finding that he was guilty of the firearm offense by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that the district court did not violate Alleyne, as it did not undertake to find any facts not charged in the indictment sentence. that would increase the mandatory minimum Rather, Everette was sentenced for the crime to which he pled guilty--possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime--and that offense was supported by an independent factual basis. B. Everette incorrectly also calculated argues his that advisory the district Guidelines range court on the distribution of cocaine base charge, specifically taking issue 5 with the court s application of the mandatory minimum sentence to his advisory Guidelines range. Because Everette did not object to the Guidelines calculation before the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577-78 (4th Cir. 2010). court did not err--plainly Everette s advisory Guidelines Manual sentence may be We conclude that the district or Guidelines range. § 5G1.1(c)(2) imposed at otherwise--in See (2012) any point U.S. calculating Sentencing (providing that within applicable the the guideline range, provided that the sentence . . . is not less than any statutorily required minimum sentence ). C. Finally, blindly Everette imposed the argues mandatory considering the § 3553(a) factors. argue for a sentence different that the minimum district sentence court without Because Everette did not than the within-Guidelines sentence [he] ultimately received, we review the adequacy of the district court s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors for plain error. Lynn, 592 F.3d at 580. After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, finding that the mandatory minimum sentence was sufficient to punish Everette in light of his limited prior criminal record. See also United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 224 (4th Cir. 6 2008) ( A statutorily required sentence, which is what [the defendant] received, is per se reasonable. ). IV. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. affirm the district court s judgment. We therefore This court requires that counsel inform Everette, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Everette requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Everette. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
