Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04450/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Desmond Farmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DESMOND FARMER, a/k/a Slick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00144-D-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew M. Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, 

Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4450 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Desmond Farmer entered into a written plea agreement with 

the Government, pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to 

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to 

distribute 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP), in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). At his Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11 hearing, which was conducted by a magistrate judge, 

Farmer was placed under oath and advised of his right to have a 

district judge conduct the hearing. Farmer informed the court 

that he understood this right, had consulted with counsel about 

it, and expressly consented to the magistrate judge conducting 

the hearing. The magistrate judge found that Farmer’s consent 

was knowing and voluntary. Neither party expressed any concern 

as to Farmer’s competence or ability to understand the 

proceedings. 

At sentencing, Farmer did not contest the magistrate 

judge’s authority to accept his guilty plea. Farmer was 

subsequently sentenced to a 168-month term of imprisonment and a 

4-year term of supervised release. This appeal timely followed. 

The lone issue Farmer raises on appeal is that the 

magistrate judge exceeded the authority vested in him under the 

Federal Magistrates Act in accepting Farmer’s guilty plea. 

Central to Farmer’s argument is United States v. Harden, 758 

F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 2014), in which the Seventh Circuit held 

Appeal: 14-4450 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

“that the magistrate judge’s acceptance of [defendant’s] guilty 

plea violated the Federal Magistrates Act[.]” Farmer 

acknowledges our contrary precedent, see United States v. 

Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “a 

magistrate judge’s acceptance of a plea, with the consent of the 

parties, does not appear to present any constitutional problems, 

either generally or in this case”), but nonetheless suggests 

that the reasoning set forth in Harden should be followed 

because it is more closely aligned with the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 931-33 

(1991). 

But, as Farmer acknowledges, this court has held that 

“magistrate judges possess the authority to bind defendants to 

their plea for the purposes of Rule 11, so long as district 

judges retain the authority to review the magistrate judge’s 

actions de novo.” Benton, 523 F.3d at 429. Regardless of the 

Seventh Circuit’s contrary decision in Harden, we are bound by 

Benton. United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 

2005) (“A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of 

the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is 

overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a 

superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)); see United States v. Ross, __ F. 

App’x __, 2015 WL 1062755 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015) (unpublished) 

Appeal: 14-4450 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

(rejecting same argument advanced by Farmer, for same reason). 

Accordingly, we reject Farmer’s challenge to the magistrate 

judge’s authority to accept his guilty plea and affirm the 

criminal 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

Appeal: 14-4450 Doc: 34 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 4 of 4