US v. Jesse Crudup

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00073-BO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999550155]. [14-4501]--[Edited 03/20/2015 by CH]

Appeal: 14-4501

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE LEE CRUDUP,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00073-BO-1)

Submitted:

February 23, 2015

Decided:

March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brad P. Bennion, East Weymouth, Massachusetts, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4501

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jesse Lee Crudup pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to one count of possession of ammunition by a felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012), and was sentenced as
an

armed

career

criminal

to

180

months’

imprisonment.

He

appeals, arguing: (1) his prior convictions are elements of the
crime

that

the

indictment

and

Government

had

audit

pre-plea

Government
prove
“an

was

beyond

a

obligation

agreement

required

identify

reasonable

to

to

to

conduct

determine

a

the

(2)

doubt;

in

the

if

criminal
the

armed

history
career

criminal act would be applicable”; and (3) the district court
erred

in

counting

prior

convictions

as

separate

offenses.

Finding no error, we affirm.
Crudup

first

argues

that

the

district

court

erred

in

imposing a sentence based on prior convictions that were neither
referenced

in

the

indictment

nor

proved

beyond

a

reasonable

doubt, citing Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S.___, 133 S. Ct.
2151 (2013) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
However, Crudup properly concedes that this Court has held that
Alleyne does not overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
523

U.S.

224,

228-35,

239-47

(1998),

which

removed

prior

convictions from the class of facts which must be submitted to a
fact-finder

to

increase

a

defendant’s

sentence.

See

United

States v. McDowell, 745 F.3d 115, 124 (4th Cir.) (“Almendarez–
2

Appeal: 14-4501

Doc: 35

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Torres remains good law, and we may not disregard it unless and
until the Supreme Court holds to the contrary.”),

cert. denied,

__ U.S.L.W. __ (Jan. 12, 2015) (No. 13-10640).
Second, Crudup asserts that the Government was obligated to
conduct a “criminal history audit” prior to entering his guilty
plea.

Essentially, Crudup argues that his plea was not knowing

and voluntary because he was unable to make an informed decision
concerning his plea.
reasons.

We find that this claim fails for several

First, the plea agreement clearly informed Crudup that

he faced the possibility of a 180-month sentence as an armed
career

criminal.

Second,

there

is

no

requirement

that

the

Government conduct any such “audit” prior to entry of a guilty
plea.

And, as Crudup was informed in the plea agreement, the

government may make a sentencing recommendation, but the court
is not bound by any such recommendation or agreement by the
parties.
guilty

Moreover, because Crudup did not move to withdraw his

plea

allegation

in
of

the
Fed.

district
R.

Crim.

court
P.

11

or

otherwise

error,

this

preserve
challenge

any
is

reviewed for plain error.

United States v. General, 278 F.3d

389, 393 (4th Cir. 2002).

The transcript of

Crudup’s guilty

plea hearing establishes that the district court fully complied
with the requirements of Rule 11.

Although the court at one

point referenced “career offender,” it correctly identified the

3

Appeal: 14-4501

Doc: 35

statutory

Filed: 03/20/2015

mandatory

minimum

Pg: 4 of 4

and

maximum

sentences

under

the

Armed Career Criminal Act.
Finally, Crudup argues that the district court erred by
counting certain prior convictions as separate offenses where
they

were

consolidated

for

sentencing

in

the

state

court,

relying on United States v. Davis, 720 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2013).
In Davis, this court noted that “when a North Carolina court
consolidates

offenses

for

judgment,

the

outcome

is

a

single

judgment for which the length of the sentence is controlled by
the maximum sentence for the most serious offense.”
However,

Davis’

holding

only

applies

to

the

Id. at 218.

career

offender

enhancement, not in the armed career criminal context.
Therefore, we affirm Crudup’s conviction and sentence.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4