US v. Javota Jeter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00254-MOC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999749898].. [15-4390]

Appeal: 15-4390

Doc: 27

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVOTA JETER, a/k/a Javonte Jeter,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00254-MOC-1)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

February 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4390

Doc: 27

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Javota

Jeter

agreement,

to

pled

guilty,

possessing

pursuant

and

to

a

brandishing

written

a

firearm

plea
in

furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 924(c) (2012), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon,

in

district

violation

court

imprisonment.

of

imposed

18
an

U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1)

aggregate

sentence

(2012).
of

125

The

months’

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), Jeter’s counsel has filed a brief certifying that
there

are

whether

no

meritorious

Jeter

offense.

possessed

grounds
the

for

firearm

appeal
used

but
in

questioning

the

§ 924(c)

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

We consider Jeter’s claim on appeal as an attack on his
guilty plea.

Jeter did not move to withdraw his guilty plea;

thus, we review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing
for plain error.
Cir. 2014).

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th

Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court

must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant
of,

and

determines

he

understands,

the

rights

he

is

relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is
pleading, and the maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he
faces.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949

F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).

The court also must ensure that

the plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or
2

Appeal: 15-4390

Doc: 27

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
Although we note that there were minor omissions in the
Rule 11 colloquy conducted by the magistrate judge, we conclude
that these minor omissions did not affect Jeter’s substantial
rights.
(2013)

See United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2147
(stating

that,

to

demonstrate

effect

on

substantial

rights in Rule 11 context, defendant “must show a reasonable
probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered
the plea” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Moreover, the

district court confirmed at sentencing that Jeter entered his
plea

knowingly

supported

his

and
plea.

voluntarily
See

and

DeFusco,

that

949

a

F.2d

factual
at

116,

basis
119-20.

While Jeter now contests the fact that he possessed the firearm
used

in

the

§ 924(c)

offense,

the

relevant

conduct

in

the

presentence report, * to which Jeter stipulated, establishes that
he

personally

carjacking.

brandished

a

firearm

in

furtherance

of

a

See United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 922

*

In the plea agreement, the parties deferred the court’s
finding of the factual basis for the guilty plea until the
sentencing hearing, and further stipulated that the Court may
use the facts in the presentence report not objected to by Jeter
in finding a factual basis for the plea.

3

Appeal: 15-4390

Doc: 27

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

(4th Cir.) (stating elements of § 924(c) offense), cert. denied,
134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Jeter, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

If Jeter requests that a petition be 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 Jeter.
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

4