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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-4888 Doc: 30 Filed: 05/16/2013 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. BRIAN MCNAIR, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?