US v. Richard Steven

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00222-12 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998686747].. [11-4031]

Appeal: 11-4031

Document: 37

Date Filed: 09/27/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD LEE STEVENS, a/k/a Stump,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00222-12)

Submitted:

September 12, 2011

Decided:

September 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory J. Campbell, CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin II, United States
Attorney, Michael B. Hissam, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4031

Document: 37

Date Filed: 09/27/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Stevens pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of transporting a stolen vehicle in
interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (2006).
The district court sentenced Stevens to two years’ probation.
On

appeal,

Stevens

argues

that

the

district

court

erred

in

finding that a sufficient factual basis supported his guilty
plea.

We affirm.
The district court is required to satisfy itself that

there is a factual basis for a defendant’s guilty plea prior to
entering judgment on the plea.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

“The

rule is intended to ensure that the [district] court make[s]
clear

exactly

what

a

defendant

admits

to,

and

whether

those

admissions are factually sufficient to constitute the alleged
crime.”

United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 366 (4th Cir.

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Stevens did

not challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting
his guilty plea in the district court, we review his challenge
for plain error.

United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 656-

57 (4th Cir. 2007).

To prevail under this standard, Stevens

must establish that a clear or obvious error by the district
court affected his substantial rights.
628 F.3d 693, 699 (4th Cir. 2011).

2

United States v. King,

Appeal: 11-4031

Document: 37

Date Filed: 09/27/2011

Page: 3 of 4

We conclude that Stevens fails to show error by the
district court.
§ 2312

is

established

(1) transported
“knew

while

A defendant’s guilt on a charge of violating

a

so

by

stolen

showing

vehicle

transporting”

that

the

interstate

that

the

defendant:

commerce

vehicle

was

and

(2)

stolen.

United States v. Costanzo, 395 F.2d 441, 445 (4th Cir. 1968).
As used in § 2312, the term “stolen” encompasses “all felonious
takings of motor vehicles with intent to deprive the owner of
the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether or
not the theft constitutes common-law larceny.”
Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 417 (1957).

United States v.

Where a defendant takes a

vehicle across state lines with the intent to deprive a creditor
of a security interest in the vehicle, the vehicle may be deemed
“stolen”

for

purposes

of

§ 2312.

United

States

v.

Bunch,

542 F.2d 629, 630 (4th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
Stevens
insufficient

to

contends
show

that

that

the

the

vehicle

interstate commerce was stolen. *

factual
he

We disagree.

basis

transported

was
in

In this case, the

record makes clear that Stevens transported a vehicle — a Honda

*

Stevens also appears to suggest that the district court
erred in finding that the factual basis was sufficient to
support his guilty plea because his conduct in this case most
closely resembles aiding and abetting mail fraud. We conclude,
however, that Stevens’ argument does not undercut the district
court’s sufficiency finding.

3

Appeal: 11-4031

Document: 37

Date Filed: 09/27/2011

Page: 4 of 4

motorcycle — in interstate commerce and did so knowing he was
depriving

the

lien

holder

of

its

security

interest

in

the

motorcycle and with the intent to dispose of the motorcycle by
selling it to a third party.
establish

that

the

This evidence is sufficient to

motorcycle

was

“stolen”

under

§ 2312.

Accordingly, we discern no error, plain or otherwise, by the
district court.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

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

AFFIRMED

4