US v. Keoki Harris

Filing 920100520

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?