US v. Eric Hutchinson, No. 16-4148 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4148 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC EZEKIAL HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Carl Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00328-NCT-1) Submitted: November 17, 2016 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and MOTZ and November 21, 2016 TRAXLER, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY, PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Ezekial Hutchinson appeals his conviction and 43-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, counsel for Hutchinson filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appeal asserting but sentence. that addressing there the are no validity of meritorious issues Hutchinson’s plea for and Hutchinson did not file a supplemental pro se brief, and the Government elected not to file a response to the Anders brief. We affirm the district court’s judgment. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the penalties he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court also must ensure that the defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not result from force, contained in the plea agreement. (3); DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 119-20. threats, or promises not Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), We conclude that the district court correctly found Hutchinson’s plea knowing and voluntary and that Hutchinson has not established plain error in his Rule 11 hearing. 2 Turning to Hutchinson’s sentence, we review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). applying an Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We must first ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly range, failing sentencing sentence. we calculate then to applicable consider factors, Id. the or the 18 failing Sentencing U.S.C. to § Guidelines 3553(a) adequately (2012) explain the If we find the sentence procedurally reasonable, consider its substantive reasonableness. Id. We presume on appeal that a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range, as here, is substantively reasonable. United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). Upon review, we discern no procedural sentencing error by the district court. or substantive Without objection, the district court correctly calculated Hutchinson’s offense level, criminal history, afforded arguments Hutchinson provided the and parties concerning an an advisory an range. opportunity adequate sentence The opportunity appropriate the adequate, Guidelines to allocute. individualized to and Finally, explanation court present provided the court for the within-Guidelines sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 3 We therefore requires affirm that the district counsel inform court’s judgment. Hutchinson, in This writing, court of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Hutchinson believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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 Hutchinson. 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 4
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.
