US v. Ikedo Field
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00111-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480717].. [14-4356]
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IKEDO FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00111-H-1)
Submitted:
November 20, 2014
Decided:
November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher F. Cowan, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Ikedo Fields pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2012), and was sentenced to 144
months in prison.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, but asking us to review whether
Fields’:
(1)
reasonable.
guilty
plea
is
valid;
and
(2)
sentence
is
The Government has declined to file a responsive
brief and Fields has not filed a pro se supplemental brief,
despite receiving notice of his right to do so.
Finding no
error, we affirm.
Because Fields did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11
hearing
is
reviewed
for
plain
error.
United
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 2002).
plain error, a defendant must show:
States
v.
To demonstrate
(1) there was error; (2)
the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial
rights.
See United States v. McLaurin, 764 F.3d 372, 388 (4th
Cir. 2014).
In the guilty plea context, a defendant satisfies
this burden by showing a reasonable probability that he would
not
have
omissions.
pled
guilty
but
for
the
district
court’s
Rule
11
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th
2
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 3 of 6
Cir. 2009). “Even when this burden is met, we have discretion
whether to recognize the error, and should not do so unless the
error
seriously
affects
the
fairness,
reputation of judicial proceedings.”
integrity
or
public
United States v. Aidoo,
670 F.3d 600, 611 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Our review of Fields’ Rule 11 hearing transcript leads
us to conclude that the district court substantially complied
with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Fields’ guilty plea
and that any omissions by the district court did not affect
Fields’ substantial rights.
Critically, the transcript reveals
that the district court ensured that the plea was supported by
an independent basis in fact, and that Fields entered the plea
knowingly
and
consequences.
voluntarily
with
an
understanding
of
the
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120
(4th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the
district court’s acceptance of Fields’ guilty plea.
We also discern no reversible error in the district
court’s decision to impose a 144-month sentence.
We review any
criminal
outside,
sentence,
“whether
inside,
just
or
significantly outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness,
“under
a
deferential
abuse-of-discretion
standard.”
United
States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012); see Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
3
The first step in this
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 4 of 6
review requires us to ensure that the district court committed
no
significant
procedural
error.
King,
673
F.3d
at
283.
Procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory,
[(2012)]
failing
factors,
to
consider
selecting
the
a
[18
U.S.C.]
sentence
based
§ 3553(a)
on
clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence—including
an
explanation
for
any
Guidelines range.”
deviation
from
the
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
“[I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural
sentencing error . . . [that] it has made before the district
court,
will
reverse
unless we can conclude “that the error was harmless.”
United
States
we
v.
instance,
review
for
Lynn,
if
592
“an
abuse
F.3d
of
572,
aggrieved
discretion”
576
party
(4th
and
Cir.
2010).
sufficiently
For
alerts
the
district court of its responsibility to render an individualized
explanation” by drawing arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence
different
than
the
one
ultimately
sufficiently “preserves its claim.”
review unpreserved
error.
non-structural
Id. at 576-77.
imposed,”
Id. at 578.
sentencing
the
party
However, we
errors
for
plain
And in the sentencing context, “the
third prong of the plain-error standard is satisfied if there is
a
non-speculative
district
court
basis
would
in
have
the
record
imposed
4
a
to
conclude
that
the
lower
sentence
upon
the
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 5 of 6
defendant but for the error.”
See McLaurin, 764 F.3d at 388
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally
reasonable can we consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed.
See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,
328 (4th Cir. 2009).
that
falls
outside
When a district court imposes a sentence
of
the
applicable
Guidelines
range,
“we
consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with
respect
to
its
decision
respect
to
the
extent
range.”
of
impose
the
such
a
divergence
sentence
from
the
and
with
sentencing
United States v. Hernandez–Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118,
123 (4th Cir. 2007).
due
to
deference
§ 3553(a)
to
factors,
variance.”
In conducting this review, we “must give
the
on
district
a
whole,
court’s
justify
decision
the
that
extent
of
the
the
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that
the
sentence
reasonable.
is
both
procedurally
We find no error in:
and
substantively
(1) the district court’s
calculation of Fields’ Guidelines range, including the career
offender designation; (2) the opportunities the court provided
Fields
and
district
his
counsel
court’s
to
speak
explanation
of
in
mitigation;
the
sentence
or
(3)
the
imposed
by
reference to Fields’ Guidelines range and the relevant § 3553(a)
factors.
See United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329, 341–42
5
Appeal: 14-4356
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/24/2014
Pg: 6 of 6
(4th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that a sentencing court is “not
required to provide a lengthy explanation or robotically tick
through § 3553(a)’s every subsection, particularly when imposing
a
below-Guidelines
alteration omitted).
sentence”)
(internal
quotation
marks
and
Finally, Fields’ below-Guidelines sentence
is presumptively substantively reasonable, see United States v.
Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012), and we discern no basis
in the record to overcome this presumption.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
our
obligations
under
issues for appeal.
judgment.
writing,
Anders
and
have
found
no
meritorious
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
This court requires that counsel inform Fields, in
of
the
right
to
petition
United States for further review.
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
If Fields 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 Fields.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
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?