United States v. Rodney Goodwin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 16, 2023
• Docket: 21-4456
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN, a/k/a Rah Rah,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cr-00203-WO-3)

Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: August 16, 2023

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS McCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Christopher Goodwin pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more

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

sentenced Goodwin to 192 months’ imprisonment for each conviction, to be served

concurrently. On appeal, Goodwin argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable

because the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.

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

being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 3B1.1(c) (2018), and a two-level enhancement for committing “the offense as

part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood” under USSG

§ 2D1.1(b)(16)(E). However, any Guidelines error is harmless—and, thus, does not

warrant reversal—if “(1) the district court would have reached the same result even if it

had decided the Guidelines issue the other way, and (2) the sentence would be reasonable

even if the Guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” United States v.

Mills, 917 F.3d 324, 330 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). The error will be deemed harmless

if we are “certain” that these requirements are satisfied. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d

194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012).

We conclude that the first prong of the assumed error harmlessness inquiry is

satisfied. The district court explicitly stated that, even if it incorrectly calculated the

Guidelines range, it nonetheless would have imposed a 192-month sentence. Thus, “the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

district court made it abundantly clear that it would have imposed the same sentence

. . . regardless of the advice of the Guidelines.” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d

370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014).

Turning to the second prong, we assess whether the sentence is substantively

reasonable, considering the Guidelines range that would have applied absent the assumed

errors. Mills, 917 F.3d at 331. When reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a

sentence, “we must examine the totality of the circumstances . . . to see 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).” Id. (cleaned up). If a sentence is outside the

Guidelines range, we “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the

extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Here, if the district court had sustained Goodwin’s objections to the two

enhancements at issue, his Guidelines range would have been 135 to 168 months’

imprisonment, rather than 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. We are satisfied that the 192-

month sentence is substantively reasonable even under this assumed Guidelines range

because the district court thoroughly explained why the sentence was necessary under the

§ 3553(a) factors. The district court acknowledged that Goodwin had never been convicted

of a felony offense but found that his criminal history was nonetheless serious. The district

court also emphasized that Goodwin had not received a significant sentence for his prior

offenses and continued to engage in criminal activity, suggesting that a longer sentence

was appropriate in this case to promote respect for the law and provide deterrence. In light

3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4456 Doc: 24 Filed: 08/16/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

of the district court’s considered explanation, we conclude that Goodwin’s sentence would

be substantively reasonable even if the challenged enhancements were not factored into his

Guidelines range.

Accordingly, we 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