USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HANKARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00017-CCB-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Alfred Guillaume III, LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED GUILLAUME III, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hankard, a former detective for the Baltimore City Police Department
(“BPD”), was convicted by a federal jury of conspiring to commit offenses against the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiring to deprive citizens of civil rights,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; two counts of destruction, alteration, or falsification of
records in federal investigations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and making false
declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The district court
sentenced Hankard to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of
supervised release.
On appeal, Hankard’s 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 questioning
whether sufficient evidence supports Hankard’s convictions and whether his sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Hankard has filed a supplemental pro se brief
in which he challenges the veracity of certain witnesses’ testimony and the lack of physical
evidence supporting the Government’s case. He further asserts that trial counsel
erroneously advised him not to testify in his own defense. The Government has declined
to file a response brief. We affirm.
I
First, Hankard preserved his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his convictions by moving for a judgment of acquittal in the district court. “We review the
sufficiency of the evidence de novo, sustaining the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, it is supported by substantial evidence.” United
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
States v. Wysinger, 64 F.4th 207, 211 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate
and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs credibility and resolves conflicts in
the evidence; and if the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury
decides which interpretation to believe.” Wysinger, 64 F.4th at 211 (internal quotation
marks omitted). “A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge therefore bears a heavy
burden, and reversal is warranted only where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Hankard’s arguments,
we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support each of his five convictions. *
II
Turning to Hankard’s sentence, we review “all sentences—whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir.
2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First, we ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,
* Although Hankard asserts that the Government’s witnesses lied to secure shorter sentences, hide their own wrongdoings, and/or protect their employment, “[w]e do not assess witness credibility, and we presume that the jury resolved any conflicting evidence in the prosecution’s favor.” United States v. Reed, 75 F.4th 396, 401 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound,
[this] court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213,
218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27
F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). A defendant can rebut this
presumption only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We conclude that Hankard’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
We discern no reversible error in the district court’s resolution of Hankard’s objections to
the presentence report, nor did the court reversibly err by calculating the advisory
Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The court thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing its chosen below Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
Although the court acknowledged Hankard’s personal history and his positive
contributions to society—as outlined by his numerous character witnesses—the court
weighed these considerations against the “egregious abuse of trust” involved in the
offenses and the need for general deterrence. In light of the court’s fulsome explanation,
Hankard fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 5 of 5
III
Finally, we liberally construe Hankard’s pro se argument that he was not represented
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4445
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HANKARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00017-CCB-1)
Submitted: January 22, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Alfred Guillaume III, LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED GUILLAUME III, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hankard, a former detective for the Baltimore City Police Department
(“BPD”), was convicted by a federal jury of conspiring to commit offenses against the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiring to deprive citizens of civil rights,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; two counts of destruction, alteration, or falsification of
records in federal investigations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and making false
declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The district court
sentenced Hankard to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of
supervised release.
On appeal, Hankard’s 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 questioning
whether sufficient evidence supports Hankard’s convictions and whether his sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Hankard has filed a supplemental pro se brief
in which he challenges the veracity of certain witnesses’ testimony and the lack of physical
evidence supporting the Government’s case. He further asserts that trial counsel
erroneously advised him not to testify in his own defense. The Government has declined
to file a response brief. We affirm.
I
First, Hankard preserved his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his convictions by moving for a judgment of acquittal in the district court. “We review the
sufficiency of the evidence de novo, sustaining the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, it is supported by substantial evidence.” United
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
States v. Wysinger, 64 F.4th 207, 211 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate
and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs credibility and resolves conflicts in
the evidence; and if the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury
decides which interpretation to believe.” Wysinger, 64 F.4th at 211 (internal quotation
marks omitted). “A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge therefore bears a heavy
burden, and reversal is warranted only where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Hankard’s arguments,
we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support each of his five convictions. *
II
Turning to Hankard’s sentence, we review “all sentences—whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the [Sentencing] Guidelines range—under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir.
2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “First, we ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,
* Although Hankard asserts that the Government’s witnesses lied to secure shorter sentences, hide their own wrongdoings, and/or protect their employment, “[w]e do not assess witness credibility, and we presume that the jury resolved any conflicting evidence in the prosecution’s favor.” United States v. Reed, 75 F.4th 396, 401 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.’” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “If the sentence ‘is procedurally sound,
[this] court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,’ taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213,
218 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Any sentence within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27
F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 164 (2022). A defendant can rebut this
presumption only by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
We conclude that Hankard’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
We discern no reversible error in the district court’s resolution of Hankard’s objections to
the presentence report, nor did the court reversibly err by calculating the advisory
Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The court thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing its chosen below Guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
Although the court acknowledged Hankard’s personal history and his positive
contributions to society—as outlined by his numerous character witnesses—the court
weighed these considerations against the “egregious abuse of trust” involved in the
offenses and the need for general deterrence. In light of the court’s fulsome explanation,
Hankard fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness accorded his sentence.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4445 Doc: 35 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 5 of 5
III
Finally, we liberally construe Hankard’s pro se argument that he was not represented
properly as a claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising
Hankard not to testify. We do not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal
“[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record.”
United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). The record demonstrates
that the district court confirmed that Hankard understood his right to testify was “absolute,”
and that Hankard nevertheless declined to testify. Because ineffective assistance does not
“conclusively appear[] on the face of the record,” this claim “should be raised, if at all, in
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id.
IV
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 Hankard, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hankard 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 Hankard.
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