United States v. Keenan Cofield

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEENAN KESTER COFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00099-MJG-1)
Submitted: May 25, 2012 Decided: June 8, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., Law Offices of Bruce A. Johnson, Jr.,
Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Sean C. Marlaire, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keenan Kester Cofield appeals from the district
court’s February 23, 2011, order extending Cofield’s supervised
release for six months and October 26, 2011, criminal judgment
sentencing him to fourteen months’ imprisonment. For the
reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
During Cofield’s service of his supervised release,
imposed as part of his conviction for conspiracy to commit an
offense against the United States, his probation officer filed a
petition for revocation of his supervised release based on
Cofield’s subsequent arrest on Maryland charges. At the hearing
on the petition, Cofield’s defense counsel admitted the charges
and asked the district court to extend Cofield’s term of
supervised release so that Cofield could receive mental health
treatment. The court granted Cofield’s request and extended his
supervised release by six months.
Nonetheless, Cofield’s probation officer filed another
petition for revocation of supervised release based on Cofield’s
arrest on new state charges and his failure to follow the
probation officer’s direction of mental health treatment.
Again, defense counsel did not contest the charges, and the
district court sentenced Cofield to fourteen months of
incarceration. On appeal, Cofield raises two issues: (1)
whether the district court erred by revoking Cofield’s probation
2
without an explicit, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of right
to contest the violations at both hearings; and (2) whether the
district court violated Cofield’s due process rights by failing
to afford him an opportunity to present evidence and question
witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1.
The Government answers that Cofield’s notice of appeal
is untimely as to the court’s February 23, 2011, order extending
Cofield’s supervised release because the notice of appeal was
not filed until November 1, 2011. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal as it relates to the February 23 order as parties in
criminal cases have fourteen days after the entry of judgment to
file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
Moreover, Cofield failed to obtain an extension of the appeal
period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759
F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).
This leaves review of the district court’s October 26
criminal judgment sentencing Cofield to fourteen months’
imprisonment. Here, Cofield did not contest his guilt to the
revocation offenses and therefore there were no witnesses or
evidence presented under Rule 32.1. We find no plain error in
the district court’s finding that Cofield committed the
offenses. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731–32 (1993)
(stating plain error review standard).
3
Accordingly, we affirm Cofield’s conviction and
sentence for violating his supervised release. We deny
Cofield’s pro se motion to allow counsel to file a supplemental
brief and dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
4