United States v. Phillip Furr , 548 F. App'x 920 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4397
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PHILLIP SCOTT FURR,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
    Judge. (4:10-cr-01043-TLW-1)
    Submitted:   November 27, 2013            Decided:   December 23, 2013
    Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RAY COIT YARBOROUGH,
    JR., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.    Alfred William
    Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
    South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Phillip       Scott       Furr     pled          guilty     to     possession         of
    firearms     by    a    convicted       felon,         in     violation        of     18    U.S.C.
    §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2012), but preserved his right to appeal
    the   district     court’s       denial      of       his    motion    to     suppress        under
    Franks v. Delaware, 
    438 U.S. 154
    (1978).                               The district court
    originally    sentenced         Furr    to     250          months’    imprisonment.              On
    appeal,     the        Government      sought           remand        of      the     case       for
    resentencing so that it could move for an additional one-level
    downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to
    the   terms       of    the     conditional           plea     agreement.             See     U.S.
    Sentencing    Guidelines         Manual       (“USSG”)         § 3E1.1(b)       (2012).           We
    granted the Government’s motion, vacated Furr’s sentence, and
    remanded for resentencing.                   At the resentencing hearing, the
    court granted the additional one-level downward adjustment for
    acceptance of responsibility to Furr’s advisory Guidelines range
    and sentenced Furr to 228 months’ imprisonment.
    Furr        now     appeals       the           district       court’s         amended
    judgment.         Counsel     has     filed       a    brief     pursuant       to    Anders v.
    California,       
    386 U.S. 738
       (1967),         stating        that    there       are    no
    meritorious       grounds       for    appeal         but     questioning           whether      the
    district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting
    Furr’s guilty plea and whether Furr’s sentence is reasonable.
    2
    Furr has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he raises
    several       challenges     to    his    sentence       and    the    district    court’s
    denial of the motion to suppress.                  We affirm.
    Initially, we conclude that some of the issues Furr
    raises    in    his    pro    se     supplemental        brief    are    barred    by   the
    mandate rule.         See Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark
    Mach. Co., 
    510 F.3d 474
    , 481 (4th Cir. 2007) (providing that
    “[t]he mandate rule is a specific application of the law of the
    case   doctrine”      to     cases      that   have      been   remanded    on    appeal).
    Although Furr challenges the district court’s application of the
    armed career criminal enhancement and argues that the Government
    breached the plea agreement by seeking the enhancement, Furr has
    waived appellate review of those issues by failing to raise them
    in his first appeal.               See United States v. Pileggi, 
    703 F.3d 675
    , 680 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding that party “is not permitted
    to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could
    just     as    well   have       raised    in      the    first       appeal”    (internal
    quotation marks and alterations omitted)).
    Next, Furr argues in his pro se supplemental brief, as
    he did in his first appeal, that the district court erred by
    denying his msotion to suppress.                   We review the factual findings
    underlying the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress
    for    clear    error      and    the    court’s      legal     conclusions      de   novo.
    3
    United States v. Kelly, 
    592 F.3d 586
    , 589 (4th Cir. 2010); see
    United       States    v.    Spears,      
    673 F.3d 598
    ,     604-05       (7th   Cir.)
    (applying same standards to denial of motion following Franks
    hearing), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 232
    (2012).                                    A defendant
    bears    a    heavy    burden       in   establishing         the    need    for    a    Franks
    hearing.       United States v. Jeffus, 
    22 F.3d 554
    , 558 (4th Cir.
    1994).       A defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing
    that a false statement critical to a finding of probable cause
    made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for
    the truth, was included in the warrant affidavit.                                 See 
    Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56
    ; United States v. Clenney, 
    631 F.3d 658
    , 663
    (4th Cir. 2011).
    If the court conducts a hearing and finds that the
    affiant committed perjury or manifested a reckless disregard for
    the truth, the tainted material must be set aside.                                
    Franks, 438 U.S. at 156
    .          If the remainder of the search warrant affidavit
    is insufficient to support a probable cause finding, then “the
    search    warrant      must       be   voided       and    the    fruits    of    the    search
    excluded.”        
    Id. The issue
       is    not        whether    the    challenged
    information       in        the     affidavit        supporting        the        warrant   is
    ultimately found to be truthful, but whether “the information ..
    . [was] believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as
    true.”       
    Id. at 165.
    4
    Upon    our     review    of          the    transcript       of    the    Franks
    hearing, we conclude that the district court did not err in
    finding that the officers did not provide false information to
    the magistrate judge or manifest a reckless disregard for the
    truth.     The district court reasonably concluded that all three
    of   the    officers      involved       in       obtaining        the    search      warrant
    “believed     or   appropriately          accepted”           that       the    information
    offered to support issuance of the warrant was true.                           
    Id. Turning next
    to the validity of Furr’s guilty plea,
    counsel questions whether the district court complied with Rule
    11 in accepting Furr’s plea.                  Because Furr did not move in the
    district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the Rule
    11 hearing for plain error.              United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th Cir. 2002).             To establish plain error on appeal,
    Furr must show:           “(1) there is ‘an error,’ (2) the error is
    ‘plain,’    and    (3)    the    error     ‘affect[s]          substantial         rights.’”
    Henderson    v.    United       States,       133       S.   Ct.    1121,      1126    (2013)
    (quoting United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732 (1993)).                                In
    the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden by showing
    a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but
    for the Rule 11 omission.            United States v. Massenburg, 
    564 F.3d 337
    , 343 (4th Cir. 2009).
    5
    Upon our review of the transcript of Furr’s guilty
    plea hearing, we conclude that the district court substantially
    complied with Rule 11 in accepting Furr’s plea and that any
    omission by the court did not affect Furr’s substantial rights.
    See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(E) (mandating that court explain
    right    against     compelled    self-incrimination);             
    Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 344
    (holding that “the mere existence of an error cannot
    satisfy     the     requirement       that     [defendant]         show     that    his
    substantial rights were affected”); United States v. Stead, 
    746 F.2d 355
    , 356-57 (6th Cir. 1984) (concluding that failure to
    advise defendant of right against compelled self-incrimination
    did not require guilty plea to be set aside).                            Moreover, the
    district     court     ensured    that       Furr’s   plea        was     knowing   and
    voluntary    and     supported   by    a   sufficient       factual       basis.    See
    United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 116, 119-20 (4th Cir.
    1991).
    Next,       both     counsel        and        Furr         question    the
    reasonableness of Furr’s sentence.                 We review Furr’s sentence
    for     reasonableness     “under      a     deferential     abuse-of-discretion
    standard.”        Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007).                      A
    sentence     is    procedurally       reasonable      if    the     court     properly
    calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gives the
    parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence,
    6
    considers   the     18    U.S.C.      § 3553(a)           factors,      does    not    rely    on
    clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explains the selected
    sentence.    
    Id. at 49-51.
    In his pro se supplemental brief, Furr argues that the
    district    court        erred    (1)     by       failing     to       order     a    revised
    presentence    report       (“PSR”);         (2)     by    failing      to     give    him    the
    opportunity    to    object       to     the       revised     PSR;      and    (3)    in     the
    procedure    used    at     the       resentencing          hearing       generally.           We
    conclude that the record directly contradicts Furr’s assertions:
    the court specifically gave counsel an opportunity to suggest an
    alternative    procedure         at    the     resentencing          hearing.          Neither
    party   accepted     the    court’s          invitation       or     requested        that    the
    probation    officer       prepare       a     revised       PSR.        Accordingly,          we
    conclude    that    Furr    has       waived       any     challenge      related      to     the
    procedure employed by the district court at the resentencing
    hearing.      See    
    Olano, 507 U.S. at 733
        (“[W]aiver        is     the
    intentional   relinquishment             or    abandonment         of    a     known   right.”
    (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Claridy,
    
    601 F.3d 276
    , 284 n.2 (4th Cir. 2010) (“When a claim of . . .
    error has been waived, it is not reviewable on appeal.”); see
    also United States v. Taylor, 
    659 F.3d 339
    , 348 (4th Cir. 2011)
    (“[T]he defendant is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-
    agent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    7
    Finding        no    significant          procedural        error,        we   now
    consider    the     substantive         reasonableness            of   Furr’s     sentence.
    
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    .                In reviewing a sentence for substantive
    reasonableness,           we     “examine[]               the     totality        of       the
    circumstances,”          and,   if    the    sentence       is    within    the       properly
    calculated Guidelines range, apply a presumption on appeal that
    the   sentence      is    substantively        reasonable.             United    States     v.
    Mendoza-Mendoza, 
    597 F.3d 212
    , 216-17 (4th Cir. 2010).                                 Such a
    presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the
    sentence    is    unreasonable         when    measured         against    the    § 3553(a)
    factors.”        United States v. Montes-Pineda, 
    445 F.3d 375
    , 379
    (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    In his pro se supplemental brief, Furr argues that the
    district court erred by distinguishing between the facts of his
    case and the facts of Pepper v. United States, 
    131 S. Ct. 1229
    (2011)    (permitting       district        court    to     consider      post-sentencing
    rehabilitation as appropriate basis for variance under § 3553(a)
    on resentencing), on the ground that Pepper demonstrated that he
    had been making significant efforts at rehabilitation outside
    prison,     while     Furr’s         efforts       were     all    within       the    prison
    environment.        We disagree with the suggestion that the district
    court erred or abused its discretion in distinguishing Pepper.
    It was not unreasonable for the court to conclude that Pepper’s
    8
    significant progress outside of prison was more notable than
    Furr’s efforts at rehabilitation while in prison and under the
    threat of sanctions for noncompliance.
    Notably,       the    district         court    did    not    ignore      Furr’s
    efforts     at    rehabilitation.              Although      the     court      explicitly
    credited Furr for his efforts, the court also considered the
    serious conduct of the underlying offense; Furr’s significant
    prior     record,    which       includes         many     violent       felonies,      some
    involving        particularly           vulnerable          victims;        and       Furr’s
    demonstrated      lack     of    respect       for    the    law.        See    18    U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(D).               Accordingly, we conclude that Furr
    has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable when measured
    against the § 3553(a) factors.
    Finally,       although        Furr      purports       to    challenge        the
    district court’s text order denying his post-sentence motion for
    reconsideration,      Furr       did    not    effectively        appeal       that   order.
    See Smith v. Barry, 
    502 U.S. 244
    , 248–49 (1992) (holding that
    appellate    brief    may       serve    as       notice    of    appeal       only   if   it
    otherwise       complies    with       rules       governing       proper      timing      and
    substance).
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
    and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.                           We therefore
    affirm    the    district        court’s      amended       judgment.          This     court
    9
    requires that counsel inform Furr, in writing, of the right to
    petition    the    Supreme      Court    of    the    United     States      for   further
    review.    If Furr 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 Furr.
    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
    10