United States v. Scott , 236 F. App'x 858 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4598
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHERRY SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00217)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leah P. Macia, BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joshua
C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherry Scott pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five
grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(2000) and was sentenced to fifty-seven months in prison. Scott
asserts she should now be permitted to withdraw her guilty plea
because the Government allegedly breached a promise it would not
use her co-conspirator’s debriefing statement in determining the
amount of relevant conduct it would attribute to her at sentencing.
Scott also claims that without the debriefing statement, her
sentence is unsupported. We affirm Scott’s conviction and
sentence.
Because Scott never moved to withdraw her guilty plea in
the district court, we review for plain error. See United States
v. Walker, 112 F.3d 163, 166 (4th Cir. 1997). To demonstrate plain
error, Scott must establish that error occurred, that it was plain,
and that it affected her substantial rights. See United States v.
Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005). Scott has failed to
meet this burden.
First, Scott failed to present evidence the Government
ever made a promise it would not use information obtained from the
debriefing statement in determining her relevant conduct.
Moreover, the record reveals Scott’s plea was knowing and voluntary
and that the district court sentenced Scott below the mandatory
minimum statutory sentence after properly determining her
- 2 -
guidelines range and thoroughly considering the factors set forth
at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s conviction and sentence.
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
- 3 -