United States v. Carla Remy ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-4314
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CARLA REMY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
    Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00201-1)
    Submitted: November 22, 2019                                Decided: December 11, 2019
    Before KING, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew J. Katz, THE KATZ WORKING FAMILIES LAW FIRM, LC, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellant. Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, Charleston, West
    Virginia, Timothy D. Boggess, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Carla Remy pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute 50
    grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012),
    and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced her to 87 months’ imprisonment. Remy appeals,
    contending that her plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not
    advise her during the Rule 11 hearing that by pleading guilty, she would not be able to
    appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss.
    Because Remy neither raised an objection during the Rule 11 hearing nor moved to
    withdraw her guilty plea in the district court, this court reviews the adequacy of the plea
    colloquy only for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 
    774 F.3d 812
    , 815 (4th Cir. 2014).
    To establish plain error, Remy “must demonstrate that an error occurred, that the error was
    plain, and that the error affected [her] substantial rights.” United States v. Heyer, 
    740 F.3d 284
    , 290 (4th Cir. 2014).
    “[A] properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy leaves a defendant with a very
    limited basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn.” United States v. Nicholson, 
    676 F.3d 376
    , 384 (4th Cir. 2012) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “Indeed,
    it raise[s] a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding.” 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted). Moreover, when a defendant pleads guilty, she “forgoes not only a fair
    trial, but also other accompanying constitutional guarantees.” United States v. Ruiz, 
    536 U.S. 622
    , 628 (2002). Thus, a defendant who enters a valid unconditional plea waives all
    rights to challenge an adverse pretrial ruling on a non-jurisdictional issue. See United
    2
    States v. Abramski, 
    706 F.3d 307
    , 314 (4th Cir. 2013). “[D]irect review of an adverse
    ruling on a pretrial motion is available only if the defendant expressly preserves that right
    by entering a conditional guilty plea.” 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    A conditional guilty plea “must be . . . in writing and must specify the adverse
    pretrial rulings that the defendant seeks to appeal.” United States v. Bundy, 
    392 F.3d 641
    ,
    645 (4th Cir. 2004). In addition, “Government consent and court approval—are mandatory
    and cannot be avoided.” 
    Id. “Absent a
    valid conditional guilty plea, [this court] will
    dismiss a defendant’s appeal from an adverse pretrial ruling on a non-jurisdictional issue.”
    
    Id. “When a
    criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty
    of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims
    relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the
    guilty plea.” Tollett v. Henderson, 
    411 U.S. 258
    , 267 (1973).
    In this case, the district court did not err in failing to explicitly inform Remy that
    she would not have the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress because Rule
    11 “does not require a district court to inform a defendant that, by pleading guilty, [s]he is
    waiving h[er] right to appeal any antecedent rulings or constitutional violations.” United
    States v. White, 
    366 F.3d 291
    , 299 n.6 (4th Cir. 2004). Remy entered a guilty plea that was
    not conditioned on reserving her right to appeal unfavorable pretrial rulings. Instead, she
    unconditionally pled guilty by affirmatively stating that she was in fact guilty of the crimes
    charged in the indictment. Remy’s guilty plea was counseled and voluntary and the district
    court thoroughly complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by ensuring that
    Remy was competent, explaining the charges against her and associated penalties, and
    3
    confirming that there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea.        Because of her
    unconditional guilty plea, Remy waived her right to contest the denial of her motion to
    suppress.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.
    DISMISSED
    4