United States of America v. Jhustyn Kelvin Mitchell, a/k/a J-West, a/k/a Big Wixked

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4389
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JHUSTYN KELVIN MITCHELL, a/k/a J-West, a/k/a Big Wixked,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00075-TDS-2)
Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David Q. Burgess, DAVID BURGESS LAW, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. John McRae Alsup, Assistant United States Attorney, Julie Carol Niemeier,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jhustyn Kelvin Mitchell appeals his convictions and the 318-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO)
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Mitchell’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is procedurally
reasonable. Mitchell has not filed a pro se brief after being notified of his right to do so.
The Government has declined to respond to the Anders brief.
We review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing whether a sentence is reasonable, we must
first confirm the district court did not commit “significant procedural error, such as . . .
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663,
668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] district court’s explanation
should provide some indication that the court considered the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors”
and “considered [the] defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments for a lower sentence.” United
States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212-13 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Our review of the
record reveals that that the district court addressed each of Mitchell’s mitigating arguments
and adequately explained the chosen sentence, and we discern no other procedural errors.
We therefore conclude that Mitchell’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Mitchell 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 Mitchell.
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

-- 3 of 3 --