United States v. Matthew Church

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-4382
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4382 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ALLEN CHURCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00175-1)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: David O. Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Rada Herrald, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4382 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Allen Church pled guilty to traveling in interstate commerce for the

purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), (e). The

district court sentenced Church below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 120

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Church’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

but questioning whether the district court erred in finding that Church was competent to

enter a guilty plea and whether Church’s sentence is procedurally and substantively

reasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief, Church expands on counsel’s argument that

he was not competent to enter a guilty plea and requests that this court address whether he

received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his competency. The Government has

not filed a response brief. We affirm.

Counsel first questions the district court’s determination that Church was competent

to enter a guilty plea. Because Church neither raised an objection during the Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11 proceeding nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the

plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).

To establish plain error, Church “must show that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was

plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d

187, 191 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “Before a court may accept a guilty plea, it must ensure

that the defendant is competent to enter the plea.” United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d

376, 382 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant is competent if

he has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4382 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 5

rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings

against him.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err, plainly

or otherwise, in finding Church competent to enter a guilty plea. The district court

thoroughly explored the relevant factors during the plea colloquy, engaging with both

Church and his counsel directly, and properly determined that Church was competent and

capable of entering a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.

Church’s counsel also questions whether Church’s sentence is unreasonable in light

of the mitigating evidence. We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside,

or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United

States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021). In conducting this review, we must first

“evaluate procedural reasonableness, determining whether the district court committed any

procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing to consider

the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”

United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). If the sentence is free of

“significant procedural error,” we then review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing]

into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any sentence that

is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively]

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

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4382 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 4 of 5

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Church’s sentence is procedurally

and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the Guidelines range,

allowed the parties to present arguments, gave Church the opportunity to allocute, directly

addressed Chruch’s mitigation arguments, considered the appropriate § 3553(a) sentencing

factors, and explained the selected sentence. Furthermore, because Church has not

demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against the

. . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has failed to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness

accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See id.

Lastly, we address Church’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not raising

below the issue of Church’s competency to plead guilty. On direct appeal, “we will reverse

only if it conclusively appears in the trial record itself that the defendant was not provided

effective representation.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en

banc) (cleaned up). Although Church asserts that counsel provided ineffective assistance

by failing to address his lack of competency to plead guilty, Church averred during his plea

hearing that he was fully satisfied with his counsel’s services. Because the present record

does not conclusively show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Church’s

claims are not cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Church, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Church requests that a petition 4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4382 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 5 of 5

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 Church. 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