US v. Kenneth Pegram
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to file pro se supplemental brief(s) [998727759-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00110-JAB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998938303].. [10-5142]
Appeal: 10-5142
Doc: 104
Filed: 09/14/2012
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5142
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENNETH LANE PEGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00100-JAB-1)
Submitted:
August 30, 2012
Decided:
September 14, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5142
Doc: 104
Filed: 09/14/2012
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth
Lane
Pegram
was
charged
in
a
superseding
indictment with possession of firearms by a convicted felon, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count One); possession of ammunition
by
a
convicted
felon,
18
U.S.C.
§
922(g)(1)
(Count
Two);
possession with intent to distribute 55.87 grams of marijuana,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (2006) (Count Three); and failure
to appear, 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) (2006) (Count Four).
He pled
guilty to Count Four, and a jury convicted him of the remaining
three offenses.
The district court subsequently dismissed Count
Two. Pegram was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment on Count
One, sixty months’ imprisonment, concurrent, on Count Three, and
twelve months’ imprisonment, concurrent, on Count Four.
Pegram now appeals.
accordance
with
Anders
v.
His attorney has filed a brief in
California,
386
U.S.
738
(1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether trial counsel was ineffective, whether there
was
prosecutorial
bias
at
misconduct,
sentencing.
Pegram
and
whether
has
filed
supplemented, raising numerous issues.
there
a
pro
was
se
judicial
brief,
as
We affirm.
I
Pegram
Four,
and
our
does
review
not
of
challenge
the
record
2
his
conviction
discloses
no
on
Count
meritorious
Appeal: 10-5142
issues
Doc: 104
for
Filed: 09/14/2012
appeal
with
Pg: 3 of 6
respect
to
that
conviction.
The
transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing reveals that the
district court substantially complied with Rule 11.
Further, as
the district court found, the plea was entered knowingly and
voluntarily, and there was a factual basis for the plea.
II
We find no merit to the issues raised in the Anders
brief.
We will not address the claim of ineffective assistance
of defense counsel because ineffectiveness does not conclusively
appear
on
the
face
Baldovinos,
434
F.3d
contention
that
the
of
the
233,
record.
239
(4th
prosecutor
See
United
Cir.
2006).
engaged
in
States
v.
Pegram’s
misconduct
lacks
merit: the brief cites no specific examples of misconduct, and
our review of the record discloses none.
Finally, the record
does not demonstrate judicial bias at sentencing.
III
In his pro se brief, Pegram raises a wide array of
claims, none of which have merit.
First, contrary to Pegram’s
assertion, the district court properly denied his Fed. R. Crim.
P.
29
motion
for
judgment
of
acquittal.
Pegram’s
primary
argument is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
he possessed the truck inside which officers found four firearms
3
Appeal: 10-5142
and
Doc: 104
a
Filed: 09/14/2012
quantity
of
Pg: 4 of 6
marijuana.
The
evidence—including
the
presence in the truck of an eviction notice addressed to Pegram,
the testimony of Van Milton Cole and Archie Emory, and the tags
on
the
truck—demonstrates
Pegram’s
constructive
possession
of
the truck.
The
parties
were
directed
to
submit
supplemental
briefing regarding a stipulation concerning Pegram’s status as a
convicted felon.
qualified
under
The indictment identified two felonies that
§ 922(g)(1).
Pegram,
however,
stipulated
at
trial as to only one felony, a 1998 conviction for possession of
marijuana in jail.
The government conceded that, after United
States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), that
conviction does not qualify as a predicate felony.
However, a
1994 conviction identified in the indictment does so qualify.
The 1994 conviction, however, was not stipulated to at trial.
After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude
that
there
was
no
reversible
error.
The
indictment
placed
Pegram on notice that the Government might use either the 1994
or the 1998 offense, or both, to establish his status.
The fact
that the crime to which Pegram ultimately stipulated was not a
felony under Simmons does not, on plain error review, destroy
the validity of the stipulation when the 1994 crime does so
qualify.
4
Appeal: 10-5142
Doc: 104
Filed: 09/14/2012
Pg: 5 of 6
With respect to Pegram’s remaining claims, our review
of the record discloses either no error or no plain error that
we will, in our discretion, recognize.
those
claims
instructions
and
to
do
the
so
very
jury
We address only a few of
briefly.
did
not
First,
the
constructively
court’s
amend
the
indictment because time generally is not a material element of a
criminal offense, United States v. Stuckey, 220 F.3d 976, 982
(8th Cir. 2000), and Pegram was not, as he urges, tried on
charges
other
than
those
made
in
the
indictment.
See
States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 708, 711 (4th Cir. 1994).
United
Second,
taken as a whole, the circumstances surrounding Pegram’s initial
questioning at a bar do not establish that he was in custody.
Accordingly, it was not necessary that the police administer
warnings in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966).
Third, the removal of Pegram’s wife from the courtroom
did
violate
not
his
right
to
a
public
trial,
for
there
is
absolutely no evidence that the courtroom did not remain open to
the general public.
Fourth, no hearing under Remmer v. United
States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), was required because the record
establishes that the court assured itself that there had been no
unauthorized communication between Pegram’s wife and any juror.
5
Appeal: 10-5142
Doc: 104
Filed: 09/14/2012
Pg: 6 of 6
IV
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.
We
supplemental
sentence.
writing,
therefore
brief,
grant
the
we
affirm
and
motion
to
Pegram’s
file
a
pro
convictions
se
and
This Court requires that counsel inform Pegram, in
of
the
right
to
petition
United States for further review.
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
If Pegram requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for
leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Pegram.
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
6
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?