United States v. Camden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL WAYNE CAMDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CR-03-168)
Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 9, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry N. Grimes, TERRY N. GRIMES, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Wayne Camden pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The plea agreement
included the following provision, entitled “Career Offender
Status:” “I understand, and am on notice, that regardless of any
action by the government, that because of my prior criminal record
I will, for sentencing purposes, most likely be treated as an
“Armed Career Criminal” under Guideline Section 4B1.4 and Title 18
United States Code Section 924(e), that is, I have been previously
convicted of at least three (3) felony drug offenses or crimes of
violence.” Based on a total offense level of 30 and criminal
history category VI, the presentence report concluded that Camden’s
guideline range was 168 to 210 months in prison. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual Ch. 5, Pt. A (sentencing table). However,
because the statutory minimum sentence was fifteen years under the
Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2004), which was greater than the low end of the guideline
range, the presentence report recommended the statutory minimum
sentence (180 months imprisonment) as the bottom of the guideline
range. The court sentenced Camden to 185 months imprisonment.
Camden has timely appealed.
Camden first claims that the district court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the Speedy
- 2 -
Trial Act. Under the Speedy Trial Act, an indictment must be filed
within thirty days from the date on which a defendant is arrested,
18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) (2000), and the trial must commence within
seventy days of the filing date of the indictment or the date of a
defendant’s initial appearance, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3161(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Certain delays are
excludable when computing the time within which a defendant must be
indicted or his trial must commence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)-(9)
(2000). Camden concedes that he was arrested within thirty days of
his indictment. He also concedes that the trial date fell within
seventy days from the date of his initial appearance, excluding
delays resulting from pretrial motions and continuances.
Accordingly, he cannot establish a violation of the Speedy Trial
Act. Because the delay between Camden’s initial appearance and his
trial date was less than six months, we also find no violation of
his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Doggett v. United
States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52 (1992); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514,
530 (1972).
Camden next argues that the district court failed to
comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 because it did not specifically
inform him of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence he faced.
Because Camden did not move in the district court to withdraw his
guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing
- 3 -
is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
To demonstrate plain error, an appellant must establish
that an error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his
substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32
(1993); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir.
2005). If an appellant meets these requirements, the court’s
“discretion is appropriately exercised only when failure to do so
would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as when the
defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Hughes, 401 F.3d at 555 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Here, there was error, because the district court
violated Rule 11(h) by failing to inform Camden at his guilty plea
hearing that he faced a statutory minimum sentence of fifteen years
imprisonment. The error was plain because it was “clear” or
“obvious.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734 (stating that for purposes of
plain error review, “‘[p]lain is synonymous with ‘clear’ or,
equivalently, ‘obvious.’”). However, we find that the error did
not affect Camden’s substantial rights.
An error is substantial if it was so prejudicial as to
affect the outcome of the proceedings. Id. at 734; Martinez, 277
F.3d at 532. In the guilty plea context, to prove that an error is
- 4 -
substantial, the defendant must show that he would not have pled
guilty but for that error. Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532. Camden does
not allege that, but for the Rule 11 error, he would not have pled
guilty. Moreover, the indictment placed Camden on notice of a
potential enhanced penalty because he was charged under § 924(e)
and the plea agreement specifically informed him that he would
“most likely be treated as an ‘Armed Career Criminal.’” Cf. United
States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that failure
to inform defendant during plea hearing that guilty plea would
result in mandatory minimum sentence constituted reversible error
where defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea and the mandatory
minimum was not mentioned in either the indictment or the plea
agreement). Accordingly, we find that the error did not affect
Camden’s substantial rights and therefore does not amount to plain
error.
Camden also challenges his sentence as an armed career
criminal. A person who violates § 922(g)(1) and has at least three
prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses is
an armed career criminal subject to enhanced penalties. 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1); USSG § 4B1.4. Camden was designated as an
armed career criminal based on the following prior convictions:
attempt to kill, malicious wounding (1984), escape by force or
violence, malicious wounding (1987), breaking and entering, and
distribution of an imitation controlled substance. We find that
- 5 -
all of these convictions qualified as predicate offenses for
purposes of § 924(e).
Finally, Camden challenges his sentence as an armed
career criminal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Camden’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Thompson, 421
F.3d 278 (4th Cir.), pet. for cert. filed (Oct. 25, 2005) (No. 05-
7266), in which this court held that the use of prior offenses to
invoke the statutory armed career criminal enhancement in § 924(e)
is permissible without indictment presentment or jury submission so
long as no facts extraneous to the facts necessary to support the
enhancement need be decided to invoke the enhancement. 421 F.3d at
282-84. Here, because the facts necessary to support the
application of the armed career criminal enhancement “inhere in the
fact of conviction,” there is no constitutional error under Booker.
We therefore affirm Camden’s conviction and sentence. We
grant Camden’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief and
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
- 6 -