US v. Wesley Barnett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00479-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000033322].. [16-4394]

Appeal: 16-4394

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WESLEY LESHAWN BARNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00479-WO-1)

Submitted:

February 24, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

NIEMEYER

and

March 1, 2017

DIAZ,

Circuit

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4394

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Wesley

Leshawn

Barnett

pled

guilty

to

one

count

of

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

924(c)(1)(A)(i)

(2012).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed on
a

60-month

sentenced

sentence

Barnett

supervised

of

to

imprisonment.

60
He

release.

months’
now

The

imprisonment

appeals.

district
and

Appellate

5

court

years

counsel

of
has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),

questioning

whether

the

district

court

complied

with

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether the sentence was reasonable.
Counsel questions whether the district court substantially
complied with Rule 11 in accepting Barnett’s guilty plea, but
does not identify any specific error committed during the plea
hearing.

Because Barnett did not move in the district court to

withdraw his guilty plea, we review this issue for plain error.
United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014).

To

establish plain error, Barnett must demonstrate that (1) the
district

court

committed

an

error;

(2)

the

error

was

plain;

(3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error
“seriously

affect[s]

the

fairness,

reputation of judicial proceedings.”

integrity

or

public

Puckett v. United States,

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In

the

of

guilty

plea

context,

a

defendant
2

meets

his

burden

Appeal: 16-4394

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

demonstrating that an error affected his substantial rights by
showing a reasonable probability that he would not have pled
guilty but for the Rule 11 omission.

Sanya, 774 F.3d at 816.

Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing
leads

us

to

conclude

that

the

district

court

substantially

complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Barnett’s
guilty plea and that any omissions by the district court did not
affect

Barnett’s

substantial

rights.

See

United

Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).

States

v.

Because Barnett

has failed to show that the district court’s acceptance of his
guilty plea warrants reversal, we affirm his conviction.
Counsel
sentence.

also

questions

the

reasonableness

of

Barnett’s

However, we lack jurisdiction to review Barnett’s

sentence of imprisonment because the district court sentenced
Barnett in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
agreement, and Barnett’s sentence is not unlawful or expressly
based

on

the

Sentencing

Guidelines.

See

United

States

v.

Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016).

To the extent that

we

supervised

may

retain

sentence

jurisdiction

because

the

plea

over

Barnett’s

agreement

did

not

release

include

an

agreed-upon term of supervised release, we conclude that the
district court did not plainly err in imposing the five-year
term

of

supervised

release.

See

United

States

v.

Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 421-22 (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing
3

Appeal: 16-4394

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

supervised release sentence for plain error where defendant did
not

object

court).
sentence

to

imposition

Therefore,
of

we

of

supervised

dismiss

imprisonment

and

release

Barnett’s

affirm

in

district

challenge

Barnett’s

to

sentence

his
of

supervised release.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

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

We therefore affirm Barnett’s conviction and supervised

release

sentence,

sentence

of

and

dismiss

imprisonment.

This

Barnett’s
court

challenge

requires

to

that

his

counsel

inform Barnett, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Barnett

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 Barnett.
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4