United States v. Jabriel Lakes

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 20, 2023
• Docket: 21-4675
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4675 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4675

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JABRIEL FITZGERALD LAKES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00078-D-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 20, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Thomas K. Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4675 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jabriel Fitzgerald Lakes appeals the 132-month prison sentence imposed following

his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance

containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Lakes

challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for possessing a

dangerous weapon under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (2021) when

calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, and asserts that the error was not

harmless. Because any error in the application of the Guidelines enhancement was

harmless, we affirm.

Rather than evaluating the merits of Lakes’ challenge to the calculation of the

Guidelines range, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.”

United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation

marks omitted). In other words, we may assume that the alleged Guidelines error occurred

and “proceed to examine whether the error affected the sentence imposed.” United States

v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017). “[W]e can find any error harmless if we

have (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had

decided the [G]uidelines issue the other way, and (2) a determination that the sentence

would be reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s

favor.” United States v. Gondres-Medrano, 3 F.4th 708, 721 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal

quotation marks omitted). The claimed error will be deemed harmless only when we are

“certain” that these requirements are met. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th

Cir. 2012).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4675 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

In this case, the first part of the inquiry is satisfied “because the district court has

expressly stated in a separate and particular explanation that it would have reached the

same result” even if it had erred in applying the Guidelines. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at

383. With respect to the second step of the analysis, we review a sentence for substantive

reasonableness by “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances to determine

whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957

F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court appropriately balanced Lakes’ serious offense conduct and

extensive criminal history with the mitigating factors he presented. The district court

further explained that the 132-month sentence imposed was necessary to promote respect

for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate general deterrence. In light of

the district court’s thorough discussion of the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that

Lakes’ sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the district

court erred in applying the disputed Guidelines enhancement—an issue we do not reach—

the error was harmless.

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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