United States v. Parnell Moore, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Parnell Moore, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PARNELL L. MOORE, a/k/a Pete, a/k/a P,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00030-JLK-1)
Submitted:
January 23, 2014
Decided:
February 4, 2014
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abram
J.
Pafford,
PAFFORD,
LAWRENCE
&
CHILDRESS,
PLLC,
Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant.
Timothy J. Heaphy, United
States Attorney, Donald Wolthuis, Assistant United States
Attorney, Drew J.M. Bradylyons, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Parnell
agreement,
to
(crack),
in
L.
Moore
three
pled
counts
violation
of
of
21
guilty,
without
distributing
U.S.C.
plea
cocaine
base
841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C)
(2012) (Counts One, Four, and Five), three counts of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(g) (2012) (Counts Two, Six, and Eight), and two counts of
using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime and
possessing the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2012) (Counts Three
and Seven).
The district court sentenced Moore to concurrent
terms
months
of
60
imprisonment
through Six, and Eight.
on
Counts
One,
Two,
Four
In addition, the court sentenced Moore
to terms of 60 months and 300 months on Count Three and Seven,
the minimum imprisonment terms required by statute for these
counts, to be served consecutively to each other and to the
concurrent sentences on the other counts.
Thus, Moores total
sentence was 420 months imprisonment.
Moore has timely appealed.
He contends that, as a
result of an error by the district court at the plea hearing,
his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.
For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Because Moore did not move in the district court to
withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge is reviewed for plain
2
error.
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525-26 (4th
Cir. 2002).
To establish plain error, Moore must show that:
(1) an error was made; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the
error affected his substantial rights.
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
United States v. Olano,
Even if Moore makes this showing,
correction of the error lies within our discretion, which we
will
not
fairness,
exercise
unless
integrity
proceedings.
Id.
or
the
error
public
(internal
seriously
reputation
quotation
affects
of
marks,
the
judicial
citations,
and
alterations omitted).
Under
Criminal
Rule
Procedure,
11(b)(1)(I)
a
district
of
the
court
is
Federal
Rules
required,
of
before
accepting a defendants guilty plea, to advise the defendant of
and ensure that he understands any applicable mandatory minimum
penalty.
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
11(b)(1)(I).
To
satisfy
this
obligation, the court must clearly advise the defendant of the
applicable minimum penalty.
United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218,
223 (4th Cir. 1994).
In this case, Moore was subject to a minimum prison
term of five years on Count Three and a consecutive minimum term
of twenty-five years on Count Seven, both consecutive to any
other term of imprisonment.
See 18 U.S.C. 924(c).
the
statutory
Government
recited
the
maximum
terms
Although
for
each
count and the mandatory minimum terms for Counts Three and Seven
at the Rule 11 hearing, the district court did not personally
advise
Moore
of
these
mandatory
minimum
terms
or
probe
his
understanding of them.
Even
if
the
district
courts
omission
amounted
to
error that was plain, Moore is not entitled to relief because
the error did not impact his substantial rights.
Cf. United
States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. 1995).
An error
impacts a defendants substantial rights if it is so prejudicial
as to affect the outcome of the proceedings.
at 532.
Martinez, 277 F.3d
In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets this
standard by showing that he would not have pled guilty but for
the Rule 11 error.
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.
74, 83 (2004); Martinez, 277 F.3d at 532.
aware
before
of
he
the
pled
mandatory
guilty:
minimum
once
prison
when
the
Here, Moore was made
terms
at
Government
least
twice
recited
the
mandatory minimum and the maximum prison terms on each count at
the arraignment and again at the plea hearing prior to the entry
of his guilty plea.
We therefore conclude that Moore cannot
credibly assert that he was unaware of the mandatory minimum
sentences prior to his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we discern no
plain error.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
4
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
