Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    United States v. Alfonso Carney, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alfonzo Carney appealed his convictions and 115-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and drug distribution charges. 2) Carney waived his right to appeal his sentence, which was below the statutory maximum, so the appeals court granted the government's motion to dismiss the sentencing appeal. 3) However, Carney challenged the validity of his guilty plea, which he did not waive. The appeals court found that while the magistrate judge who conducted the plea colloquy failed to expressly ask if Carney was forced into pleading guilty, this error did not affect Carney's substantial rights, so the plea was valid.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Alfonso Carney, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    57 views5 pages
    1) Alfonzo Carney appealed his convictions and 115-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and drug distribution charges. 2) Carney waived his right to appeal his sentence, which was below the statutory maximum, so the appeals court granted the government's motion to dismiss the sentencing appeal. 3) However, Carney challenged the validity of his guilty plea, which he did not waive. The appeals court found that while the magistrate judge who conducted the plea colloquy failed to expressly ask if Carney was forced into pleading guilty, this error did not affect Carney's substantial rights, so the plea was valid.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-11-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4403

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alfonzo Carney appealed his convictions and 115-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and drug distribution charges. 2) Carney waived his right to appeal his sentence, which was below the statutory maximum, so the appeals court granted the government's motion to dismiss the sentencing appeal. 3) However, Carney challenged the validity of his guilty plea, which he did not waive. The appeals court found that while the magistrate judge who conducted the plea colloquy failed to expressly ask if Carney was forced into pleading guilty, this error did not affect Carney's substantial rights, so the plea was valid.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    57 views5 pages

    United States v. Alfonso Carney, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Alfonzo Carney appealed his convictions and 115-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and drug distribution charges. 2) Carney waived his right to appeal his sentence, which was below the statutory maximum, so the appeals court granted the government's motion to dismiss the sentencing appeal. 3) However, Carney challenged the validity of his guilty plea, which he did not waive. The appeals court found that while the magistrate judge who conducted the plea colloquy failed to expressly ask if Carney was forced into pleading guilty, this error did not affect Carney's substantial rights, so the plea was valid.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4403

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALFONSO CARNEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:13-cr-00232-REP-1)

    Submitted:

    November 20, 2014

    Decided:

    November 24, 2014

    Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam


    opinion.

    Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.


    Pratt, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Stephen Wiley Miller,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alfonzo Carney appeals his convictions and 115-month
    sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a
    firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2012), and
    distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine
    base, 21 U.S.C. 841 (2012).

    On appeal, counsel has filed a

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


    stating

    that

    questioning

    there

    are

    whether

    the

    no

    meritorious

    magistrate

    issues

    judge

    for

    appeal

    adequately

    complied

    with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in conducting the plea colloquy.


    Government

    has

    waiver

    appeal

    of

    moved

    to

    rights

    dismiss
    in

    his

    the
    plea

    appeal,

    citing

    agreement.

    but

    The

    Carneys

    Carney

    was

    informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but


    has not done so.

    For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part

    and dismiss in part.


    We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
    United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).

    We generally will enforce a

    waiver . . . if the record establishes that the waiver is valid


    and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
    waiver.

    United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th

    Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

    defendants waiver is valid if he agreed to it knowingly and


    intelligently.

    United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627


    2

    (4th Cir. 2010).

    Our review of the record leads us to conclude

    that Carney knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal


    any sentence within the statutory maximum.

    Because the district

    court imposed a sentence below the statutory maximum on both


    counts, we grant in part the Governments motion to dismiss and
    dismiss the appeal of Carneys sentence.
    Although Carney agreed to waive his right to appeal
    his convictions in his plea agreement, a defendants waiver of
    appellate

    rights

    constitutional
    plea.

    in

    any

    challenge

    See, e.g.,

    court

    must

    to

    cannot

    the

    foreclose

    voluntariness

    of

    colorable
    the

    guilty

    United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 73233 &

    n.2 (4th Cir. 1994).


    his guilty plea.

    event

    Here, Carney challenges the validity of

    Before accepting a guilty plea, the district

    conduct

    plea

    colloquy

    in

    which

    it

    informs

    the

    defendant of, and determines that the defendant comprehends, the


    nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty, the maximum
    possible penalty he faces, any mandatory minimum penalty, and
    the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.

    Fed. R.

    Crim. P. 11(b); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th
    Cir.

    1991).

    The

    court

    also

    must

    ensure

    that

    the

    plea

    is

    voluntary, supported by an independent factual basis, and not


    the

    result

    agreement.

    of

    force,

    threats,

    or

    promises

    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3).

    outside

    the

    plea

    Because Carney did not assert in the district court


    any error in the plea proceedings, we review the adequacy of his
    plea colloquy for plain error.

    United States v. Massenburg, 564

    F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir. 2009).

    To establish plain error, Carney

    must

    demonstrate

    error

    was

    rights.

    plain,

    that

    (1)

    the

    district

    and

    (3)

    the

    error

    Henderson

    (2013).

    In

    the

    v.

    United

    guilty

    affected

    States,

    plea

    court

    133

    context,

    S.

    an

    erred,

    (2)

    the

    his

    substantial

    Ct.

    1121,

    error

    1126

    affects

    defendants substantial rights if he demonstrates a reasonable


    probability
    error.

    that

    he

    would

    not

    have

    Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343.

    pled

    guilty

    but

    for

    the

    Even if these requirements

    are met, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error


    only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
    reputation

    of

    judicial

    proceedings.

    United

    States

    v.

    Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    Our review of the record reveals that the magistrate
    judge substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in
    conducting the plea colloquy. *

    While the record discloses that

    the magistrate judge did not expressly ask Carney whether he had
    been

    forced

    or

    threatened

    into

    pleading

    guilty,

    see

    Fed.

    R.

    Carney consented to having a magistrate judge preside over


    the Rule 11 proceedings.

    Crim.

    P.

    11(b)(2),

    we

    are

    satisfied

    affect Carneys substantial rights.


    343.

    The

    magistrate

    judge

    that

    any

    error

    did

    not

    See Massenburg, 564 F.3d at

    otherwise

    complied

    with

    the

    requirements of Rule 11, ensuring that the plea was knowing,


    voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.

    We therefore find

    the plea valid and enforceable.


    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
    We therefore affirm Carneys convictions and dismiss the appeal
    as to his sentence.

    This court requires that counsel inform

    Carney, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court


    of the United States for further review.
    that

    petition

    be

    filed,

    but

    counsel

    If Carney requests

    believes

    that

    such

    petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court


    for leave to withdraw from representation.

    Counsels motion

    must

    served

    on

    the

    facts

    state

    dispense

    that

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    copy

    thereof

    argument

    adequately

    was

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    Carney.

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART

    You might also like