United States v. Samuel Spilios

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2023
• Docket: 22-4569
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4569 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4569

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL ANTHONY SPILIOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00011-JPB-JPM-2)

Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4569 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Anthony Spilios pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(viii). The district court sentenced Spilios to the statutory minimum term of 120

months’ imprisonment. 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 pointing our

attention to the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and the sentencing hearing. Although notified

of his right to do so, Spilios has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government

declined to file a brief and has not moved to enforce the appeal waiver in Spilios’ plea

agreement. ∗ We now affirm.

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the

defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum

possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by

pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the

defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not

result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of the court’s compliance with Rule 11, we

“accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated

∗ Because the Government has not moved to enforce the appellate waiver, we conduct a full review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4569 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

colloquy with the defendant.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295 (4th Cir.

2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Spilios did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the validity of

his plea only for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016).

To demonstrate plain error, Spilios must establish that “(1) an error was made; (2) the error

is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris,

890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the guilty plea

context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain error affected his substantial

rights by showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but for

the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th

Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and, discerning no plain error, we

conclude that Spilios’ guilty plea is valid.

“We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) using an

abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of whether the sentence is inside, just outside, or

significantly outside the Sentencing Guidelines range.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d

204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)). In performing that review, we must first determine

whether the district court “committed any procedural error, such as improperly calculating

the Guidelines range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately

explain the chosen sentence.” Id. If “the district court has not committed procedural error,”

we then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Our substantive

reasonableness review “takes into account the totality of the circumstances to determine

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4569 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose

satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Any

sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted 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) (citation omitted).

Although the district court’s explanation for Spilios’ sentence was brief, we are

satisfied that it was adequate. Moreover, we note that any procedural error was harmless,

given that the court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Therefore, we

conclude that Spilios’ 120-month sentence is reasonable.

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 Spilios, in writing, of the right to petition the

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