US v. Ronnie Dakota Covington, No. 13-4908 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4908 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE DAKOTA COVINGTON, a/k/a Dread, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00061-RJC-1) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ross Hall Richardson, Acting Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Dakota Covington appeals the 151-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to two counts of possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 In (1967), Covington s counsel has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly offender under U.S. § 4B1.1 (2012). Sentencing Covington supplemental brief. We classified Covington Guidelines raises a a Manual similar career ( USSG ) question in his We affirm. review Covington s sentence using an abuse-of-discretion standard. 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). procedural as error[s], for reasonableness, Gall v. United States, We must first review for significant including improperly calculating[] the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008). sentence is procedurally substantive reasonableness. Only if we conclude that the reasonable may we consider its United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 Here, the record reveals no procedural or substantive error in Covington s sentence. Prior to his instant offenses, Covington sustained felony convictions for a crime of violence and a controlled substance offense, thus qualifying him as a career offender. USSG § 4B1.1(a). The fact that one of those convictions may have been predicated on an Alford * plea is of no consequence. See United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2012). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Covington, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Covington requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that counsel may in move representation. such this a petition court for would leave to be frivolous, withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Covington. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970). 3
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.
