United States v. Freeman ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5131
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CR-04-156)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Freeman pled guilty to one count of armed bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000), and two
counts of interference with commerce by threats or violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000). The district court
sentenced Freeman to 212 months of imprisonment on each count, to
run concurrently. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders1 brief, in
which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
suggests that the district court failed to comply with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in the guilty plea hearing.
Freeman was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but he has not filed a brief. We affirm.
Because Freeman did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule
11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.
Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that “plain
error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error
in the Rule 11 context”). Before a reviewing court may correct a
trial error to which there was no contemporaneous objection, three
factors must be shown: (1) there was error, (2) the error was
plain, and (3) the error affected substantial rights. See United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). If these three factors
are satisfied, an appellate court should exercise its discretion to
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
correct the error when the error “‘seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’”
Id. at 736 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160
(1936)). Our review of the plea hearing transcript reveals that
the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy that
assured Freeman’s plea was made both knowingly and voluntarily.
See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117, 120 (4th Cir.
1991). Accordingly, we find Freeman’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary and properly accepted by the district court.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.2 We therefore affirm Freeman’s convictions and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Freeman, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Freeman 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 Freeman.
2
We note that the sentence does not violate Freeman’s Sixth
Amendment rights as articulated in United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220 (2005), and that the district court’s mandatory treatment
of the sentencing guidelines does not require reversal because
there is no nonspeculative basis to conclude that such mandatory
treatment affected the selection of the sentence imposed. See
United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 223 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 3 -
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -