Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN AUSTIN PERKINS, III

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-13 The Fourth Circuit affirmed John Austin Perkins, III’s conviction and sentence for falsifying a document to impede a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The court applied the plain error standard of review because Perkins failed to raise objections regarding his guilty plea or sentencing procedures in the district court. Under this standard, the court required Perkins to demonstrate an error that was plain and affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different without the alleged error. Regarding the sentence’s reasonableness, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard, presuming a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable unless the defendant rebuts this presumption by showing it is unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court concluded that Perkins failed to show plain error in the district court’s compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and Rule 32, and found the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable because the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors including Perkins’s criminal history and arguments for a variance, and adequately explained its decision to deny a downward variance despite Perkins’s age and health concerns. As a practical consequence, the judgment of the district court stands, and counsel is required to inform Perkins of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.