US v. Hoover

Filing 920061103


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ZACHARY JEREMIAH HOOVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (CR-05-75) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Zachary J. Hoover appeals the 18-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a criminal information charging him with sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2243(a) (2000). We affirm. Hoover's sole argument on appeal is that the Government breached the plea agreement by stating to the court at sentencing that the court did not need to decide whether Hoover should register as a sex offender. Hoover did not object below, and he must therefore demonstrate plain error before he can obtain any relief. See United States v. Fant, 974 F.2d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 1992) (applying plain error analysis in context of breach of plea agreement). In order to do so, Hoover must establish the breach was "`so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.'" United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 66 Our review of the (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Fant, 974 F.2d at 565). record convinces us that the Government did not breach the plea agreement in responding to the district court's questions at sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm Hoover's sentence. with oral argument We dispense because the facts and legal contentions are - 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?