United States v. John Zajac

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4524 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4524

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN RYAN ZAJAC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:25-cr-00005-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026

Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kyle Robert Kane, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4524 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

John Ryan Zajac pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to unlawful possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8), and possession with intent to

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court

sentenced him to 135 months in prison. On appeal, counsel for Zajac has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal but asking that we review the record for possible errors. Zajac

has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so, and

the Government has declined to file a response brief. We affirm.

Because Zajac did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea and did not

contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we review

the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. King, 91 F.4th 756,

760 (4th Cir. 2024). A guilty plea is valid if the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and

intelligently pled guilty “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely

consequences.” United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal

quotation marks omitted); see King, 91 F.4th at 760.

For instance, before accepting a guilty plea, the court must conduct a plea colloquy

during which it must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant

understands, the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charge to which he is

pleading, and the maximum and any mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11(b)(1). The court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of

threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2),

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4524 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

and that a factual basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). We have reviewed the

transcript of Zajac’s Rule 11 hearing and conclude that the magistrate judge—to whose

jurisdiction Zajac consented, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)—committed no error in accepting

Zajac’s guilty plea, which was knowing and voluntary.

Next, we review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence

is reviewed for both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. In determining

procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the

defendant’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue

for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently

explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51.

If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then we review it for

substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at

51. “Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is

presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

“Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable

when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors.” Id.

We conclude that the district court correctly calculated Zajac’s Guidelines range.

The district court also afforded Zajac an opportunity to allocute; listened to the parties’

arguments regarding an appropriate sentence, including Zajac’s request for a downward

variant sentence; and thoroughly explained the imposed sentence. Further, nothing in the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4524 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

record rebuts the presumption of substantive reasonableness afforded to Zajac’s within-

Guidelines sentence.

Finally, we observe that the special conditions of supervised release contained in

the written judgment are consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the

sentence. That is, each special condition imposed in the judgment was explicitly

announced by the district court judge at the sentencing hearing, to no objections. See

United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2020).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Zajac, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of

the United States for further review. If Zajac 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 Zajac.

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