US v. Keoki Harris

Filing 920100520

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-01221-GRA-1)

Submitted:

April 20, 2010

Decided:

May 20, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell W. Mace, III, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Keoki Harris pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006). in prison. Fed. He R. appeals, Crim.

He was sentenced to 188 months that that the his district guilty court was

contending 11 and

violated

P.

plea

unknowing and involuntary.

We affirm.

Harris claims that the district court violated Rule 11 because the court advised him that his advisory Guidelines range would be 151-188 range months. 188-235 This range proved The erroneous; did the not

correct

was

months.

mistake

constitute a violation of Rule 11, however, for there is no requirement in the Rule that a defendant be provided with a forecast of his advisory Guidelines range. Rather, under Rule

11(b)(1)(H)-(I), the district court must inform the defendant of, and ensure that he understands, the statutory minimum and maximum sentences that he faces. compliance with Rule 11, [we] "In reviewing the adequacy of accord deference to the trial

court's decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the defendant." 116 (4th Cir. and 1991). United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, During sentences Harris Harris' that he Rule 11 colloquy, were court the

minimum several

maximum and

faced to the

mentioned that he

times,

represented

2

understood.

We

conclude

that

the

court

complied

with

this

requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Harris argues that he relied on the district court's erroneous deciding prediction to plead of his and advisory that his Guidelines plea was range in

guilty

therefore

unknowing and involuntary.

Because Harris did not move in the

district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any errors in the Rule 11 hearing are reviewed for plain error. See United "To error

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). establish plain error, [Harris] must show that an

occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights." See United States v. Muhammad, 478 Even if Harris satisfies these the error remains within our

F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir 2007). requirements, "correction of

discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." See id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). Here, Harris cannot make the required showing. During

the plea colloquy, the court asked, "Do you understand that you could get anywhere between 151 months to 188 months?" replied, "Yes, Your Honor." Harris' sentence of 188 Harris months

falls within this range.

He cannot seriously claim that the

error in forecasting his advisory Guidelines range affected his 3

substantial range.

rights

when

he

received

a

sentence

within

that

We accordingly affirm.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4