US v. James Bailey, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999265217].. [13-4185, 13-4342]

Appeal: 13-4185

Doc: 43

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. “Bill” Bailey, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES W. BAILEY, JR., a/k/a James W. “Bill” Bailey, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted:

November 26, 2013

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

December 23, 2013

Appeal: 13-4185

Doc: 43

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark R. Sigmon, GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Richard Edwards, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Mythili Raman, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Denis J. McInerney, Acting Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Richard A. Friedman, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-4185

Doc: 43

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
James W. Bailey, Jr., appeals the 384-month sentence
imposed by the district court.

Bailey pled guilty, pursuant to

a written plea agreement, to securities fraud, mail fraud, and
filing
parties

a

false

tax

approached

agreement.

The

return.
the

After

district

district

Bailey

court

court

pled

guilty,

both

a

corrected

plea

the

corrected

plea

with

accepted

agreement after a comprehensive hearing by a magistrate judge
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.

On appeal, Bailey contends

that the district court erred when it accepted the corrected
plea agreement because the agreement’s new provisions were not
supported by independent consideration.
Bailey

did

not

object

to

We affirm.
the

acceptance of the corrected plea agreement.

district

court's

Quite the opposite,

Bailey personally confirmed that the corrected plea agreement
accurately reflected the intent of the parties at the time that
the original plea was entered.
plain error.
(1993).

Therefore, our review is for

See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732

To establish plain error, Bailey must show (1) there

was error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected
his substantial rights.

Id.

Even if these requirements are

met, we will notice the error only if it “seriously affects the
fairness,

integrity

or

public

3

reputation

of

judicial

Appeal: 13-4185

Doc: 43

proceedings.”

Filed: 12/23/2013

Id.

Pg: 4 of 4

(internal quotation marks and alteration

omitted).
We conclude that the district court validly accepted a
reformation of the original plea agreement.
available

when

the

parties,

having

reached

“Reformation is
an

agreement

and

having then attempted to reduce it to writing, fail to express
it correctly in the writing.”

27 Samuel Williston & Richard A.

Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 70:21 (4th ed. 2003).
Both the Government and Bailey agreed before the district court
that

the

corrected

plea

agreement

accurately

bargain that they had initially struck.
that

the

district

court

did

not

reflected

the

Therefore, we conclude

commit

error,

plain

or

otherwise, when it accepted the corrected plea agreement based
on Bailey’s representations.
Accordingly,
judgment.
legal
before

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

amended

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

4