US v. Brian McNair
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-02342-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999108852].. [12-4888]
Appeal: 12-4888
Doc: 30
Filed: 05/16/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4888
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIAN MCNAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-02342-RBH-1)
Submitted:
May 13, 2013
Decided:
May 16, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John M. Ervin, III, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. ERVIN, III,
Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-4888
Doc: 30
Filed: 05/16/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Brian McNair pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
(2006).
On
appeal,
counsel
has
filed
a
brief
pursuant
to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at McNair’s
change of plea hearing and whether his sentence is reasonable.
McNair filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the Double
Jeopardy
Clause
prosecution.
of
the
Fifth
Amendment
bars
his
federal
Finding no error, we dismiss in part and affirm in
part.
Prior
to
accepting
a
guilty
plea,
a
trial
court,
through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant
of, and determine that the defendant understands, the nature of
the charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum
penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various
rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.
11(b)(1).
The
district
court
also
must
Fed. R. Crim. P.
ensure
that
the
defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient
factual basis, and did not result from force or threats.
R.
Crim.
P.
11(b)(2),
(3).
Upon
2
review
of
the
Fed.
record,
we
Appeal: 12-4888
Doc: 30
conclude
Filed: 05/16/2013
that
the
district
Pg: 3 of 5
court
complied
with
Rule
11’s
requirements.
McNair
contends
that
his
federal
prosecution
is
unlawful because he had served a state sentence for the same
conduct.
The
protects
a
Double
Jeopardy
against
defendant
Clause
“the
of
the
Fifth
Amendment
of
cumulative
imposition
punishments for the same offense in a single criminal trial” and
“being
subjected
offense.”
to
successive
prosecutions
for
the
United States v. Goodine, 400 F.3d 202, 206 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
the
dual
same
or
prosecution
separate
after
a
sovereigns
state
doctrine
prosecution
for
permits
the
However,
a
same
federal
offense.
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89 (1985); see also United States
v. Christmas, 222 F.3d 141, 145 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Abbate
v.
United
States,
359
U.S.
187
(1959)).
We
conclude
that
McNair’s case is firmly within the dual sovereign exception.
Thus, we affirm McNair’s conviction.
Turning to McNair’s sentence, we note that McNair and
the Government stipulated to a sentence as provided by Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), (c)
(2006), “[w]here a defendant agrees to and receives a specific
sentence, he may appeal the sentence only if it was (1) imposed
in violation of the law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect
application
of
the
Guidelines,
3
or
(3)
is
greater
than
the
Appeal: 12-4888
Doc: 30
Filed: 05/16/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
sentence set forth in the plea agreement.”
United States v.
Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2005).
Court
lacks
jurisdiction
over
the
“Otherwise, the
appeal.”
Id.
Here,
the
district court imposed the specific sentence to which McNair
agreed, and the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.
Moreover, it could not have been imposed as a result of an
incorrect application of the Guidelines because it was based on
the parties’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and not on the district
court’s calculation of the Guidelines.
See United States v.
Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 339-40 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v.
Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005).
We therefore
dismiss McNair’s appeal to the extent that he challenges the
stipulated sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm McNair’s conviction, and dismiss McNair’s
appeal to the extent he challenges his sentence.
This court
requires that counsel inform McNair, in writing, of the right to
petition
the
Supreme
review.
If
McNair
Court
of
requests
the
that
United
a
States
petition
be
for
further
filed,
but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on McNair.
4
Appeal: 12-4888
Doc: 30
Filed: 05/16/2013
Accordingly,
we
Pg: 5 of 5
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
will
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
5
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?