US v. Maurice Baum

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00002-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999590609]. [14-4543]

Appeal: 14-4543

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE BAUM, a/k/a Dog Pound,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.
Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00002-FL-1)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided:

May 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis A. Thompson, III, BANZET, THOMPSON & STYERS, PLLC,
Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. MayParker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4543

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Maurice

Baum

pled

guilty

pursuant

to

a

written

plea

agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and
5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846

(2012)

laundering,

(Count

1),

and

to

one

count

of

money

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (2012) (Count 2).

in
The

district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 273 months
on Count 1 and a concurrent, within-Guidelines sentence of 240
months on Count 2.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Baum’s counsel has filed a brief certifying
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but citing the
validity of Baum’s guilty plea and the reasonableness of his
sentence.

Although notified of his right to do so, Baum has not

filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We affirm.

To assure that a defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary,
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 requires a district court to “inform the
defendant of, and determine that he understands, the nature of
the

charge(s)

minimum
rights.”
1991).

to

penalty,

which
the

the

plea

maximum

is

offered,

possible

any

penalty

mandatory

and

various

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir.
Where, as here, a defendant did not move to withdraw his

guilty plea, we review the plea hearing for plain error.
States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).
2

United

A defendant

Appeal: 14-4543

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

can only satisfy the plain error standard if he shows that, but
for

an

error

by

the

district

court

during

the

Rule

11

proceeding, there is a reasonable probability that he would not
have entered his plea.

United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d

337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
the

district

court

Our review of the record reveals that

substantially

complied

with

Rule

11

by

ensuring that Baum was competent to plead guilty and that his
guilty

plea

was

knowing,

voluntary,

and

supported

by

an

independent basis in fact.
Our review of Baum’s sentence is for reasonableness, under
an abuse of discretion standard. *
U.S. 38, 46 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552

We first review for significant procedural

error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then
consider substantive reasonableness.

Id. at 51.

Procedural

error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the

18

U.S.C.

adequately

§

explain

3553(a)
the

(2012)

selected

factors,

sentence.

and
Id.

failing

to

Substantive

reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances, and if the sentence imposed falls within or below

*

Because we decline to enforce appeal waivers sua sponte,
our Anders review of Baum’s sentence is unaffected by the waiver
provision in his plea agreement.
See United States v.
Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007).

3

Appeal: 14-4543

Doc: 27

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

the properly-calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness.
278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012).
neither

a

procedural

United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
Our review of the record reveals

error

nor

anything

overcoming

the

applicable presumption of reasonableness.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Baum’s conviction and sentence.

We

This court

requires that counsel inform Baum, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Baum requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Baum.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4