US v. Wesley Barnett
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00479-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4394]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
February 24, 2017
March 1, 2017
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed on
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
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
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).
establish plain error, Barnett must demonstrate that (1) the
(3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error
reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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
complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Barnett’s
guilty plea and that any omissions by the district court did not
Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
has failed to show that the district court’s acceptance of his
guilty plea warrants reversal, we affirm his conviction.
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
Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016).
To the extent that
agreed-upon term of supervised release, we conclude that the
district court did not plainly err in imposing the five-year
Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 421-22 (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing
Pg: 4 of 4
supervised release sentence for plain error where defendant did
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
We therefore affirm Barnett’s conviction and supervised
inform Barnett, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
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.
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Barnett.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?