Background
A jury convicted Remy Ra St. Felix on nine counts, including conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, kidnapping, Hobbs Act robbery, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina sentenced him to 564 months in prison.
On appeal, St. Felix challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his Hobbs Act robbery and firearm convictions. He also argued that the district court failed to make findings required to apply five uncontested “pseudo-counts” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d), and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Because St. Felix had not preserved his sufficiency challenge or his objection to the pseudo-counts, those claims ordinarily would be reviewed for plain error. But he did not address the requirements for plain-error relief in his appellate briefing, so the court held that he forfeited both arguments. The court also explained that a sentencing court may accept undisputed portions of a presentence report as factual findings and may rely on them without further inquiry.
The court rejected St. Felix’s substantive-reasonableness challenge. Read in context, the district court’s statement that reasonable minds could disagree about the sentence did not concede that the sentence was unreasonable; it explained why the court selected 564 months instead of the government’s requested 600 months. Because the sentence was within the Guidelines range and St. Felix offered no persuasive reason that it was unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court upheld it.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who failed to preserve a claim below must address all requirements for plain-error relief or risk forfeiting the claim on appeal.
- A sentencing court may adopt uncontested factual statements in a presentence report without making additional findings.
- A district court’s recognition that reasonable judges could choose a different sentence does not establish substantive unreasonableness.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision underscores the importance of preserving objections in the district court and expressly arguing the plain-error standard when raising an unpreserved issue on appeal. Failure to do so can prevent appellate review of the merits.
It also illustrates the substantial burden defendants face when challenging a within-Guidelines sentence as substantively unreasonable, particularly when the sentencing court considered the parties’ arguments and the statutory sentencing factors.