Criminal Practice – Guilty Plea – Letter Offered for Mitigation Purposes

Listen to this article

The court adequately considered a letter Defendant offered for mitigation purposes.

We affirmed in part and dismissed in part the district court’s order.

Defendant Dillinger Matson Bolden pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and a quantity of cocaine. The district court sentenced Bolden below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 189 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Bolden’s counsel 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 Bolden’s sentence is procedurally reasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider a letter he offered in mitigation.

Bolden’s only challenge to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence was whether the court adequately considered a letter offered for mitigation purposes. While the district court did not explicitly reference the letter during the pronouncement of Bolden’s sentence or in its statement of reasons, the court fully heard both Bolden and his counsel on the issue and the record establishes that the court properly considered numerous other mitigating factors, such as Bolden’s intelligence, good familial relationships, employment history, and the need to avoid an unwanted sentence disparity between Bolden and his codefendant. The district court made the reasoning behind its decision clear, detailing Bolden’s criminal history and emphasizing the seriousness of a drug offense to the community. Therefore, Bolden’s sentence is procedurally reasonable, and because Bolden has not demonstrated that his term of imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he failed to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness accorded his below-Guidelines sentence.

Bolden also sought to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress. Because Bolden entered a valid unconditional guilty plea, his challenge to the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress is not properly before [this court].” United States v. Fitzgerald, 820 F.3d 107, 113 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. See United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 645 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore dismissed Bolden’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his suppression motions, and we affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

United States v. Dillinger Matson Bolden (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 003-032-25, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson (Timothy M. Cain, J.) On Brief: James A. Brown, Jr., Law Offices of Jim Brown, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellant; Justin William Holloway, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Unpublished