United States v. Richard Hopkins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 21-4595
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4595

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD HOPKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:20-cr-00719-CMC-10)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Richard Hopkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and heroin, possession with intent

to distribute fentanyl and heroin, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

trafficking crime. Hopkins was sentenced to 228 months in prison. Hopkins’ counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising for the court’s consideration the following

issues: (1) whether Hopkins’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was properly conducted and

(2) whether the district court properly calculated the drug quantity. Neither Hopkins nor

the Government has filed a brief. We affirm.

Our review of the plea hearing shows that the proceeding was conducted

substantially in compliance with Rule 11. Moreover, Hopkins knowingly and voluntarily

pled guilty to his offense, and his plea was supported by a sufficient factual basis. We

therefore find no reversible error in the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. Martinez,

277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting that when defendant does not seek to withdraw

his guilty plea or otherwise preserve any allegation of Rule 11 error, review is for plain

error).

Next, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supported the court’s

calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Hopkins. At sentencing, Hopkins

challenged the testimony of a cooperating witness, asserting that a more conservative

calculation should apply. The district court reduced the drug weight based on Hopkins’

objections, although the decrease was not as large as the one for which Hopkins advocated.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4595 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

Specifically, the court found the witness to be credible and consistent, and Hopkins does

not dispute that the witness’s testimony, if accepted, supported the court’s calculations.

Thus, the district court did not clearly err in its drug quantity findings. See United States v.

Davis, 918 F.3d 397, 405 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating that, at sentencing, the Government must

prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence).

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 Hopkins, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hopkins 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 Hopkins. 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