UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4536

TIMOTHY CHINYERE ENWEREAMA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-288-BO)

Submitted: June 26, 2003

Decided: July 29, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy Chinyere Enwereama pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000).

Enwereama was sentenced to thirty months incarceration, three years

of supervised release, a $5000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.

Enwereama timely appealed, raising three issues. 

First, Enwereama argues he entered an unknowing and involuntary

guilty plea because the district court failed to explain the charge to

him. Because Enwereama did not move to withdraw his guilty plea

or otherwise raise this claim in the district court, we review for plain

error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

733-37 (1993); United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 536 U.S. 950 (2002); United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d

F.3d 517, 529-34 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 200

(2002). Although our review of the record reveals that the district

court did not adequately explain the nature of the charges, or even the

elements of the offense, this error warrants no relief because

Enwereama does not assert that, but for the district court’s error, he

would not have pleaded guilty. Martinez, 277 F.3d at 530. Thus, he

has not shown that the error violated his substantial rights. United

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 63 (2002). 

Second, Enwereama argues the district court erred by failing to

adequately address his challenge to the Presentence Investigation

Report’s determination on the amount of loss he was liable for as relevant conduct. We review a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error and its related legal conclusions, including the

application of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v.

Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). This claim is meritless.

Enwereama cannot establish the district court miscalculated his relevant conduct, and in any event, the alleged error did not affect

2 UNITED STATES v. ENWEREAMA
Enwereama’s sentencing range. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1(b)(1)(K) (2000). 

Third, Enwereama argues his thirty month sentence violates

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Because he did

not raise this claim in the district court, we review for plain error. Fed.

R. Crim. P. 52(b); Olano, 507 U.S. 725. This claim is meritless.

Enwereama’s sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum, and consequently, Apprendi does not provide a basis for finding

sentencing error. United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937 (2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm Enwereama’s conviction and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. ENWEREAMA 3