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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000033322].. [16-4394]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4394 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4394 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WESLEY LESHAWN BARNETT, Defendant -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 Chief Judge, Decided: and NIEMEYER and March 1, 2017 DIAZ, Circuit Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?