United States v. William Butler , 588 F. App'x 265 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4171
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER BUTLER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (4:13-cr-00051-F-1)
    Submitted:   November 25, 2014              Decided:   December 19, 2014
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Thomas   G.  Walker,   United   States  Attorney,  Jennifer   P.
    May-Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William          Butler       was       sentenced      to     twenty            years’
    imprisonment          and      a     lifetime         of    supervised          release         for
    transporting          child        pornography        in    violation          of    18      U.S.C.
    § 2252(a)(1)         (2012).          On    appeal,        Butler    contends          that     the
    district court plainly erred in finding a sufficient factual
    basis to accept his guilty plea.                     We affirm.
    Because Butler did not challenge the Fed. R. Crim. P.
    11 proceedings in the district court, we review his challenge
    for plain error.             United States v. Mastrapa, 
    509 F.3d 652
    , 657
    (4th    Cir.        2007).         Under    plain      error      review,           Butler     must
    demonstrate         that     an    error    (1)      occurred,      (2)    was       plain,     and
    (3) affected          his     substantial            rights.         United          States     v.
    Henderson, 
    133 S. Ct. 1121
    , 1126 (2013).                            Even then, we will
    correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,
    integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”                                        
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks and alteration omitted).
    Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, a district
    court must find a factual basis to support the plea.                                      Fed. R.
    Crim.   P.     11(b)(3).            The    factual      basis     may     be    supported        by
    anything       in     the     record,      including        the     presentence           report.
    United States v. Martinez, 
    277 F.3d 517
    , 525 (4th Cir. 2002).                                     A
    mere blanket admission of guilt, in response to a recitation of
    the elements of the charged offense, is, without more, not a
    2
    sufficient     factual     basis     to    support    a    plea.       See     United
    States v. Carr, 
    271 F.3d 172
    , 178-81 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have reviewed the record and find no plain error.
    Assuming, without deciding, that Butler's admission at the Rule
    11 hearing was insufficient by itself to support a guilty plea,
    the   record    as   a   whole,      including       the   presentence       report,
    provided ample factual basis for the plea.
    We affirm the district court’s judgment.                     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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4171

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 265

Judges: Shedd, Wynn, Harris

Filed Date: 12/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024