US v. Keoki Harris
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
April 20, 2010
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
unknowing and involuntary.
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
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
faced to the
mentioned that he
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
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
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
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?